L v M.
Date: 2013-04-18
28. In that regard, it is sufficient to recall that, in accordance with settled case‑law, questions on the interpretation of European Union 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 European Union law that is sought bears no relation to the 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 (Case C‑45/09 Rosenbladt [2010] ECR I‑9391, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
29. In the present case, the question referred concerns the interpretation of Article 3(4) and (5) of the directive. It is not for the Court but solely for the national court to rule on the interpretation of national law (Case C‑7/11 Caronna  [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 54), and to ascertain to what extent Paragraph 214(2a)(1) of the BauGB is likely to apply to the main proceedings. Furthermore, there is nothing in the decision for reference to suggest that that national provision could not apply in this case.
31. At the outset, it should be recalled that, as is apparent from Article 1 of the directive, the fundamental objective of that 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 (Case C‑295/10 Valčiukienė and Others  [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 37, and Case C‑41/11 Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne  [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 40).
32. As is apparent from the decision for reference, the building plan at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of Article 3(4) of the directive or, possibly, Article 3(3) thereof. Under those provisions, Member States are to determine whether the plans and programmes covered by that article are likely to have significant environmental effects.
43. Moreover, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that, where a plan, within the meaning of the directive, should, prior to its adoption, have been subject to an assessment of its environmental effects in accordance with the requirements of the directive, the national courts hearing an action for annulment of such a plan are obliged to take all general or particular measures for remedying the failure to carry out such an assessment (see, to that effect, Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne , paragraphs 44 to 46).
44. Consequently, in the main proceedings, it is for the referring court, within the exercise of its jurisdiction, to apply the provisions of European Union law and to give full effect to those provisions, refusing to apply any provision of the BauGB, in particular Paragraph 214(2a)(1) thereof, which would lead that court to deliver a decision contrary to the directive (see, to that effect, Case 106/77 Simmenthal  [1978] ECR 629, paragraph 24, and Case C‑617/10 Åkerberg Fransson  [2013] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 45).