Jerzy JendrośkaThe EIA Directive in the case law of CJEU

INTERACTION BETWEEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND THE NATURE

DIRECTIVESACADEMY OF EUROPEAN LAW (ERA) ON BEHALF OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (CONTRACTING AUTHORITY)

Bucharest, 22-24 January 2014

Content

• Transposition of the Directive• Approach to applying the Directive and need for

assessment • Definition of a project and screening• Place in development control and concept of

development consent• Public participation and access to justice• Transboundary procedure

Publication

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PROJECTS

RULINGS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE European Commission 2013

Transposition of the Directive

Main principles – transposition must – Assure full application of the directive in a

sufficiently clear and precise manner– Be in the act with unquestionable binding

force Leading cases

– C-332/04, Commission v. Spain, – C-427/07, Commission v. Ireland

Approach to applying the Directive and need for assessment

EIA Directive has a wide scope and a broad purpose– (C-72/95, Kraaijeveld and Others, 39; C-435/97,

WWF and Others; C-2/07, Abraham and Others – Liège airport, C-275/09, Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Others)

Procedural nature of EIA ((C-420/11, Leth) Consent granted in breach of EIA Directive

– EIA must be carried out before consent! - C-215/06 (EC vs Ireland)

– In case of breach the national court shall consider if the consent should be be revoked or suspended – or alternatively the harm compensated - (C-201/02, Wells, C-215/06 EC vs Ireland)

Concept of project

Broad definition of „construction”– modernisation of existing road i C-142/07 (CODA)– Modernisation of existing runway (Abraham and Others,)– Demolition works (C-50/09, Commission v. Ireland,)

Current tendency to restrictive interpretation of the concept of project– Extension of consent for operation of the landfill ((C-

121/11, Pro-Braine and Others)– Extension of consent for operation of the airport ((C-

275/09, Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Others,)

Screening

need for cumulative assesment and no for salami-slicing - C-392/96 (EC vs Ireland) or C-227/01 (EC vs Spain)

Not whole class to be excluded (Case C-133/94 Com. v.Belgium and Grosskrotzenburg Case C-301/95 Com. V.Germany)

Screening cd

– all Annex III criteria to be used • not only size of project C-392/96 (EC vs

Ireland) and Crystal Palace/White City (C-508/03)

• in all screening methods - C-156/07 (Aiello)

– negative screening require justification – C-87/02 (EC vs Italy)• but only upon request (C-75/08 Mellor)

Place in development control and concept of development consent

Place in development control– Multiple decison-making (C-416/10, Križan)– main and implementing decision - C-201/02 (Delena

Wells) – need for repeating EIA - Crystal Palace/White City

(C-508/03), Barker (C-290/03)

Concept of development control– Binding (Case 96/81 Commission v. Netherlands)– no tacit agreement -C-360/87 and C-230/00 (EC vs

Belgium)

Public participation and access to justice

Right to have the consequences assessed (C-420/11, Leth

Right of individuals to rely on a directive and of the national court to take it into consideration ((C-72/95, Kraaijeveld and Others, C-435/97, WWF and Others; C-287/98, Linster, C-201/02, Wells)

Aarhus Convention is part of acquis (C-240/09, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie – Slovak bear Case)

Access to justice– Not confined only to participation in administrative

procedure ((C-263/08, Djurgården)– Vide acces to justice required ((C-263/08, Djurgården)

Fee for public participation in line with EIA Directive – verdict controversial in light of Aarhus Convention

Access to justice cd

Rights of Ngos (C-263/08, Djurgården and C-115/09, Trianel Kohlekraftwerk Lünen

Subjective rights and protection of public intersest C-115/09, Trianel Kohlekraftwerk Lünen)

Interests capable of being impaired – under EU law and domestic law (C-115/09, Trianel Kohlekraftwerk Lünen

Injunctive relief – opinion AG Kokott in C-416/10 Križan Information on access to justice C-427/07, Commission

v. Ireland,

Decision on development consent

Assessment under art.3 and consideration under art.8 (C-50/09, Commission v. Ireland,)

Statement of reasons must be prepared only if the interested party so requests (C-182/10, Solvay and Others) verdict controversial in light of art.6.9 of the Aarhus Convention

The public must be informed ((C-332/04, Commission v. Spain)