Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus v Comune di Venezia and Others.
Date: 2016-12-21
29


The national court refers to the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which a Member State which establishes criteria and/or thresholds taking account only of the size of projects, without also taking their nature and location into consideration, exceeds the limits of its discretion (see, in relation to Directive 85/337, judgments of 21 September 1999, Commission v Ireland, C‑392/96, EU:C:1999:431, paragraphs 64 to 67, and of 16 March 2006, Commission v Spain, C‑332/04, not published, EU:C:2006:180, paragraphs 76 to 81).
36


In this respect, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought is unrelated to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see, inter alia, judgments of 13 March 2001, PreussenElektra, C‑379/98, EU:C:2001:160, paragraph 39, and of 21 September 2016, Radgen, C‑478/15, EU:C:2016:705, paragraph 27).
41


It must be stated as a preliminary point that Directive 2001/42 is founded on Article 175(1) EC, concerning environmental actions to be taken by the European Union in order to achieve the objectives of Article 174 EC.
42


Article 191 TFEU, which corresponds to Article 174 EC and previously, in essence, to Article 130r of the EC Treaty, provides, in paragraph 2, that the European Union’s policy on the environment aims at a ‘high level of protection’ taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. Similarly, Article 3(3) TEU provides that the European Union works in particular for a ‘high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment’.
43


According to the case-law of the Court, Article 191(1) TFEU authorises the adoption of measures relating solely to certain specified aspects of the environment, provided that such measures contribute to the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment (see judgments of 14 July 1998, Safety Hi-Tech, C‑284/95, EU:C:1998:352, paragraph 45, and of 14 July 1998, Bettati, C‑341/95, EU:C:1998:353, paragraph 43).
44


Whilst it is undisputed that Article 191(2) TFEU requires EU policy in environmental matters to aim for a high level of protection, such a level of protection, to be compatible with that provision, does not necessarily have to be the highest that is technically possible. Article 193 TFEU authorises the Member States to maintain or introduce more stringent protective measures (see judgments of 14 July 1998, Safety Hi-Tech, C‑284/95, EU:C:1998:352, paragraph 49, and of 14 July 1998, Bettati, C‑341/95, EU:C:1998:353, paragraph 47).
46


In that regard, it should be pointed out that, in view of the need to strike a balance between certain of the objectives and principles mentioned in Article 191 TFEU, and of the complexity of the implementation of those criteria, review by the Court must necessarily be limited to the question whether the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, by adopting Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/42, committed a manifest error of appraisal (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 July 1998, Safety Hi-Tech, C‑284/95, EU:C:1998:352, paragraph 37; of 14 July 1998, Bettati, C‑341/95, EU:C:1998:353, paragraph 35; and of 15 December 2005, Greece v Commission, C‑86/03, EU:C:2005:769, paragraph 88).
47


As regards Directive 2001/42, it must be recalled that, under Article 1, the objective of that 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.
52


The mechanisms for reviewing the plans and programmes referred to in Article 3(5) of Directive 2001/42 are designed to facilitate the specification of plans that require assessment because they are likely to have significant environmental effects (see judgment of 22 September 2011, Valčiukienė and Others, C‑295/10, EU:C:2011:608, paragraph 45).
53


The margin of discretion enjoyed by Member States pursuant to Article 3(5) of Directive 2001/42 to specify certain types of plans or programmes which are likely to have significant environmental effects is limited by the requirement under Article 3(3) of that directive, in conjunction with Article 3(2), to subject the plans or programmes likely to have significant effects on the environment to environmental assessment, in particular on account of their characteristics, their effects and the areas likely to be affected (see judgment of 22 September 2011, Valčiukienė and Others, C‑295/10, EU:C:2011:608, paragraph 46).
54


Article 3(2), (3) and (5) of Directive 2001/42 thus aims not to exempt any plan or programme likely to have significant effects on the environment from the requirement of environmental assessment (see judgment of 22 September 2011, Valčiukienė and Others, C‑295/10, EU:C:2011:608, paragraph 53).
55


It is appropriate therefore to distinguish that situation from one in which a purely quantitative threshold would lead, in practice, to an entire class of plans or programmes being exempted in advance from the requirement of environmental assessment under Directive 2001/42, even if those plans or programmes are likely to have significant effects on the environment (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 September 2011, Valčiukienė and Others, C‑295/10, EU:C:2011:608, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).
58


However, as is clear from Directive 2001/42, as interpreted by the Court, it is for the Member States to take, within the sphere of their competence, all the general or particular measures necessary to ensure that all plans or programmes likely to have significant environmental effects within the meaning of that directive are subject, before adoption, to an environmental assessment in accordance with the procedural requirements and the criteria laid down by that directive (see judgment of 28 February 2012, Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne, C‑41/11, EU:C:2012:103, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).
62


In that regard, it must be pointed out that Article 52(2) of the Charter provides that rights recognised by the Charter for which provision is made in the Treaties are to be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties. Such is the case with Article 37 of the Charter. As is apparent from the explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) in connection with that provision, the ‘principles set out in [Article 37 of the Charter] have been based on Articles 2, 6 and 174 [EC], which have now been replaced by Article 3(3) [TEU] and Articles 11 and 191 [TFEU].’
66


As regards the term ‘small areas at local level’, for the purposes of Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/42, the need for a uniform application of EU law and the principle of equality require that the terms of a provision of EU law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, which must take into account the context of that provision and the purpose of the legislation in question (see, inter alia, judgments of 18 January 1984, Ekro, C‑327/82, EU:C:1984:11, paragraph 11, and of 13 October 2016, Mikołajczyk, C‑294/15, EU:C:2016:772, paragraph 44).