CELEX: 62009CN0240
Language: en
Date: 2009-07-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-240/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 3 July 2009 — Lesoochranárske Zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky

26.9.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 233/3
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 3 July 2009 — Lesoochranárske Zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky
   (Case C-240/09)
   2009/C 233/05
   Language of the case: Slovak
   
      Referring court
   
   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Lesoochranárske Zoskupenie VLK
   
      Defendant: Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is it possible to recognise Article 9 and in particular Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, given that the principal objective pursued by that international treaty is to change the classic definition of locus standi by according the status of a party to proceedings to the public, or the public concerned, as having the direct effect of an international treaty (‘self-executing effect’) in a situation where the European Union acceded to that international treaty on 17 February 2005 but to date has not adopted Community legislation in order to transpose the treaty concerned into Community law?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is it possible to recognise Article 9 and in particular Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, which has become a part of Community law, as having the direct applicability or direct effect of Community law within the meaning of the settled case-law of the Court of Justice?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the answer to the first of the second question is in the affirmative, is it then possible to interpret Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, given the principal objective pursued by that international treaty, as meaning that it is necessary also to include within the concept ‘act of a public authority’ an act consisting in the delivery of decisions, that is to say, that the right of public access to judicial hearings intrinsically also includes the right to challenge the decision of an administrative body, the unlawfulness of which lies in its effect on the environment?