This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009CN0050
Case C-50/09: Action brought on 4 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
Case C-50/09: Action brought on 4 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
Case C-50/09: Action brought on 4 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
OJ C 82, 4.4.2009, p. 19–20
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
4.4.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 82/19 |
Action brought on 4 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
(Case C-50/09)
(2009/C 82/35)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, C. Clyne, J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)
Defendant: Ireland
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
declare that by failing to transpose Article 3 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment as amended; |
|
— |
declare that by failing to ensure that, where Irish planning autorities and the Environmental Protection Agency both have decision-making powers on a project, there will be complete fulfilment of the requirements of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that Directive; |
|
— |
declare that by excluding demolition works from the scope of its legislation transposing that Directive, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive. |
|
— |
order Ireland to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Failure to transpose article 3 of the directive
The Commission submits that Section 173 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2000, which requires planning authorities to have regard to the environmental impact statement (EIS) and information coming from consultees, relates to the duty under art. 8 of the directive to take into consideration information gathered pursuant to arts. 5, 6 and 7 of the directive. In the Commission's view Section 173 does not correspond to the wider duty under art. 3 of the directive to ensure that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) identifies, describes and assesses all the matters referred to in that provision.
As for Articles 94, 108 and 111 and Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, the Commission makes the following observations. Art. 94 read with Schedule 6.2(b) sets out the information that an EIS must contain. This is a reference to the information that the developer must provide pursuant to art. 5 of the directive; it is therefore to be distinguished from the EIA which is the overall assessment process. Arts. 108 and 111 require planning authorities to consider the adequacy of an EIS. The Commission considers that these provisions relate to Art. 5 of the directive but are not a substitute for a transposition of art. 3 of the directive. The information to be provided by a developer is only one part of an EIA and provisions concerning such information are not a substitute for the obligation set out in art. 3.
Failure to require proper coordination between authorities
Although the Commission has no objection in principle to multi-stage decision-making or to decision-making responsibility for the same project being divided between different decision-makers, it does have concerns relating to the precise manner in which duties on different decision-makers are framed. In the Commission's view Irish legislation contains no obligation on decision-makers to coordinate with each other effectively and is, therefore, contrary to articles 2, 3 and 4 of the directive.
Failure to apply the directive to demolition works
The Commission takes the view that, where the other conditions set out in the directive are fulfilled, an EIA must be carried out for demolition works. Ireland purported to exempt nearly all demolition works by the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (Schedule 2, part I, Class 50). In the Commission's submission, this is plainly at variance with the directive.
(1) OJ L 175, p. 40.