CELEX: 62010CN0295
Language: en
Date: 2010-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-295/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Vyriausiasis Administracinis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania), lodged on 15 June 2010 — Genovaitė Valčiukienė, Julija Pekelienė, the public organisation ‘The Lithuanian Green Movement’ , Petras Girinskis and Laurynas Arimantas Lašas v Municipal Council of the District of Pakruojas, the Šiauliai Centre for Public Health and the Šiauliai Regional Department for Environmental Protection

14.8.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 221/29
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Vyriausiasis Administracinis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania), lodged on 15 June 2010 — Genovaitė Valčiukienė, Julija Pekelienė, the public organisation ‘The Lithuanian Green Movement’, Petras Girinskis and Laurynas Arimantas Lašas v Municipal Council of the District of Pakruojas, the Šiauliai Centre for Public Health and the Šiauliai Regional Department for Environmental Protection
   (Case C-295/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/47
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   
      Referring court
   
   Lietuvos Vyriausiasis Administracinis Teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania)
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellants: Genovaitė Valčiukienė, Julija Pekelienė, the public organisation ‘The Lithuanian Green Movement’, Petras Girinskis and Laurynas Arimantas Lašas
   
      Respondents: Municipal Council of the District of Pakruojas, the Šiauliai Centre for Public Health and the Šiauliai Regional Department for Environmental Protection
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: the private companies ‘Sofita’ and ‘Oltas’, the office of the Governor of the Šiauliai Region, Rimvydas Gasparavičius and Rimantas Pašakinskas
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Can the determination that a strategic assessment of effects on the environment need not be carried out in the case of documents relating to land planning at local level, in the detailed conclusions of which only one subject of economic activity is mentioned, as laid down in the legislation of the Republic of Lithuania, inter alia in point 3.4 of Decree No 967 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 18 August 2004‘confirming the schedule governing the procedure for the strategic assessment of the environmental effects of plans and programmes’, be regarded as a specification of types of plans and programmes within the meaning of Article 3(5) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment? (1)
               
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Are the provisions of national law applicable in the present case, which provide that, in each specific case in which the potential significance of effects on the environment is not determined, a strategic assessment of the effects on the environment of land planning documents applied to small areas of land at local level, as in the present case, is not to be carried out solely on the basis that reference is made in those documents to one subject of economic activity, compatible with the requirements of Article 3(2)(a), 3(3) and 3(5) of Directive 2001/42?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Are the provisions of Directive 2001/42, including Article 11(1) thereof, to be construed as meaning that in circumstances such as those obtaining in the present case, in which an environmental impact assessment was carried out pursuant to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, (2) the requirements of Directive 2001/42 are not applicable?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Does the scope of application of Article 11(2) of Directive 2001/42 encompass Directive 85/337?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, does the fact that an assessment has been carried out pursuant to Directive 85/337 mean that the obligation to carry out an assessment of effects on the environment pursuant to the requirements of Directive 2001/42, in a situation such as that which has arisen in the present case, would be regarded as constituting duplication of assessment within the meaning of Article 11(2) of Directive 2001/42?
            
         
               6.
            
            
               If the answer to Question 5 is in the affirmative, does Directive 2001/42, including Article 11(2) thereof, place Member States under an obligation to provide in national law for joint or coordinated requirements governing the assessment to be carried out pursuant to Directive 2001/42 and Directive 85/337 with a view to avoiding duplication of assessment?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.
   
      (2)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.