Raoul Thybaut and Others v Région wallonne.
Date: 2018-06-07
35


The fact that a national court has, formally speaking, worded a question referred for a preliminary ruling with reference to certain provisions of EU law does not preclude this Court from providing the national court with all the elements of interpretation that may be of assistance in adjudicating on the case pending before it, whether or not that court has referred to them in its questions. In that regard, it is for the Court to extract from all the information provided by the national court, in particular from the grounds of the decision referring the questions, the points of EU law which require interpretation, having regard to the subject matter of the dispute (judgment of 22 June 2017, E.ON Biofor Sverige, C‑549/15, EU:C:2017:490, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited).
36


In that regard, Article 3(2) of the SEA Directive lays down the rule that an environmental assessment must be carried out for all plans and programmes referred to in that provision, whereas the exception in Article 3(3) of that directive subjects such an assessment to the condition that Member States have determined whether the plans and programmes covered by Article 3(2) are likely to have significant environmental effects (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 April 2013, L, C‑463/11, EU:C:2013:247, paragraph 32).
38


As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that, as is clear from recital 4 of the SEA Directive, environmental assessment is an important tool for integrating environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of certain plans and programmes.
39


Next, under Article 1, the objective of the SEA Directive is to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development, by ensuring that, in accordance with that directive, an environmental assessment is carried out of certain plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment (judgment of 21 December 2016, Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus, C‑444/15, EU:C:2016:978, paragraph 47).
40


Lastly, given the objective of the SEA Directive, which is to provide for such a high level of protection of the environment, the provisions which delimit the scope of the directive, in particular those setting out the definitions of the measures envisaged by the directive, must be interpreted broadly (judgment of 27 October 2016, D’Oultremont and Others, C‑290/15, EU:C:2016:816, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
43


The Court has interpreted that provision as meaning that plans and programmes the adoption of which is regulated by national legislative or regulatory provisions, which determine the competent authorities for adopting them and the procedure for preparing them, must be regarded as being ‘required’ within the meaning, and for the application, of the SEA Directive and, accordingly, must be subject to an assessment of their environmental effects in the circumstances which it lays down (judgment of 22 March 2012, Inter-Environnement Bruxelles and Others, C‑567/10, EU:C:2012:159, paragraph 31).
46


In the second place, Article 3(2)(a) of the SEA Directive provides that a systematic environmental assessment is to be carried out for all plans and programmes which, first, are prepared for certain sectors and, second, set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to the EIA Directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 June 2010, Terre wallonne and Inter-Environnement Wallonie, C‑105/09 and C‑110/09, EU:C:2010:355, paragraph 43).
50


As regards the second of the conditions mentioned in paragraph 46 above, in order to ascertain whether a consolidation area, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, sets the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to the EIA Directive, it is necessary to examine the content and purpose of that instrument, taking into account the scope of the environmental assessment of projects as provided for by that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 June 2010, Terre wallonne and Inter-Environnement Wallonie, C‑105/09 and C‑110/09, EU:C:2010:355, paragraph 45).
54


As to whether an instrument, such as the contested instrument, sets the framework for future development consent of projects, it should be noted that the Court has previously held that the notion of ‘plans and programmes’ relates to any measure which establishes, by defining rules and procedures for scrutiny applicable to the sector concerned, a significant body of criteria and detailed rules for the grant and implementation of one or more projects likely to have significant effects on the environment (judgment of 27 October 2016, D’Oultremont and Others, C‑290/15, EU:C:2016:816, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited).
55


In that regard, the concept of ‘a significant body of criteria and detailed rules’ must be understood qualitatively and not quantitatively. It is necessary to avoid strategies which may be designed to circumvent the obligations laid down in the SEA Directive by splitting measures, thereby reducing the practical effect of that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 October 2016, D’Oultremont and Others, C‑290/15, EU:C:2016:816, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).
58


It follows that, although such an instrument does not, and cannot, lay down positive requirements, the possibility which it lays down of allowing a derogation from the planning rules in force to be obtained more easily amends the legal process and consequently brings the consolidation area at issue in the main proceedings within the scope of Article 2(a) and Article 3(2)(a) of the SEA Directive.
61


The Court notes that the fundamental objective of the SEA Directive is to ensure that ‘plans and programmes’ which are likely to have significant effects on the environment are subject to an environmental assessment when they are prepared and prior to their adoption (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 February 2012, Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne, C‑41/11, EU:C:2012:103, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
64


Furthermore, an assessment of the effects on the environment carried out under the EIA Directive cannot lead to an exemption from the obligation to carry out the environmental assessment required by the SEA Directive for the purposes of addressing the environmental aspects particular to the SEA Directive.