Communication: judgment No. 0463 of 2020

IDENTIFIER
62020CA0463
LANGUAGE
English
COURT
Court of Justice of the European Union
AG OPINION
NO
REFERENCES MADE
3
REFERENCED
1
DOCUMENT TYPE
Communication: judgment

Judgment



19.4.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/13


Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Namur-Est Environnement ASBL v Région wallonne

(Case C-463/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Relationship between the assessment and consent procedure referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2011/92/EU and a national procedure of derogation from the species protection measures provided for in Directive 92/43/EEC - Concept of ‘consent’ - Complex decision-making process - Obligation to conduct an assessment - Material scope - Procedural stage at which public participation in the decision-making process must be guaranteed)

(2022/C 165/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Namur-Est Environnement ASBL

Defendant: Région wallonne

Operative part of the judgment

1.

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 a decision adopted under Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, which authorises a developer to derogate from applicable measures for the protection of species, with a view to executing a project, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92, falls within the consent procedure of that project, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of that directive, if, first, the execution of that project cannot take place without the developer having obtained that decision and, second, the authority competent for authorising such a project retains the ability to determine its environmental effects more strictly than was done in that decision.

2.

Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted, having regard in particular to Articles 6 and 8, as meaning that the adoption of a prior decision authorising a developer to derogate from applicable measures for the protection of species, with a view to executing a project, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of that directive, need not necessarily be preceded by public participation, provided that that participation is ensured in an effective manner before the adoption of the decision to be taken by the competent authority for the possible consent for that project.


(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.



Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.