CELEX: 62016CA0470
Language: en
Date: 2018-03-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-470/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited, Maura Sheehy v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Right of members of the public concerned to a review procedure — Premature challenge — Concepts of a not prohibitively expensive procedure and of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of the directive — Applicability of the Aarhus Convention)

14.5.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 166/9
            
         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited, Maura Sheehy v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Ireland, Attorney General
   (Case C-470/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Right of members of the public concerned to a review procedure - Premature challenge - Concepts of a not prohibitively expensive procedure and of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of the directive - Applicability of the Aarhus Convention))
   (2018/C 166/11)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Referring court
   
   High Court (Ireland)
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited, Maura Sheehy
   
      Defendants: An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Ireland, Attorney General
   
      Notice party: EirGrid plc
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive applies to a procedure before a court of a Member State, such as that in the main proceedings, in which it is determined whether leave may be granted to bring a challenge in the course of a development consent process, a fortiori where that Member State has not determined at what stage a challenge may be brought.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Where an applicant raises both pleas alleging infringement of the rules on public participation in decision-making in environmental matters and pleas alleging infringement of other rules, the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive laid down in Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/92 applies only to the costs relating to the part of the challenge alleging infringement of the rules on public participation.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Article 9(3) and (4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU environmental law, the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive applies to the part of a challenge that would not be covered by that requirement, as it results, under Directive 2011/92, from the answer given in point 2 of the present operative part, in so far as the applicant seeks, by that challenge, to ensure that national environmental law is complied with. Those provisions do not have direct effect, but it is for the national court to give an interpretation of national procedural law which, to the fullest extent possible, is consistent with them.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               A Member State cannot derogate from the requirement that certain judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive, laid down by Article 9(4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters and Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/92, where a challenge is deemed frivolous or vexatious, or where there is no link between the alleged breach of national environmental law and damage to the environment.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.