Case C‑570/13

Karoline Gruber

v

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Construction of a retail park — Binding effect of an administrative decision not to carry out an environmental impact assessment — No public participation’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 16 April 2015

Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92 — Rights of members of the public concerned to challenge decisions — National legislation precluding neighbours who are part of the public concerned from those rights — Unlawful

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92, Arts 1(2), and 11(1))

Article 11 of Directive 2011/92 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which an administrative decision declaring that a particular project does not require an environmental impact assessment, which is binding on neighbours who were precluded from bringing an action against that administrative decision, where those neighbours, who are part of the ‘public concerned’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive, satisfy the criteria laid down by national law concerning ‘sufficient interest’ or ‘impairment of a right’. It is for the national court to verify whether that condition is fulfilled in the case before it. Where it is so fulfilled, that court must hold that the administrative decision not to carry out such an assessment is not binding on those neighbours.

Although Member States have a significant discretion to determine what constitutes ‘sufficient interest’ or ‘impairment of a right’, that discretion is limited by the need to respect the objective of ensuring wide access to justice for the public concerned. In that regard, although the national legislature is entitled, inter alia, to confine the rights whose infringement may be relied on by an individual contesting one of the decisions, acts or omissions referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2011/92 to individual public-law rights, that is to say, individual rights which, under national law, can be categorised as individual public-law rights, the provisions of that article relating to the rights to bring actions of members of the public concerned by the decisions, acts or omissions which fall within that directive’s scope cannot be interpreted restrictively.

Consequently, national legislation restricting the right to bring an action against decisions examining whether an environmental impact assessment need be carried out in relation to a project only to the project applicants, the participating authorities, the ombudsman for the environment and the municipality concerned, excluding a large number of individuals, including, in particular, ‘neighbours’ who may meet the conditions laid down in Article 11(1) of Directive 2011/92 is incompatible with Directive 2011/92.

(see paras 38-40, 42, 43, 51, operative part)

Case C‑570/13

Karoline Gruber

v

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten and Others

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Construction of a retail park — Binding effect of an administrative decision not to carry out an environmental impact assessment — No public participation’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 16 April 2015

Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92 — Rights of members of the public concerned to challenge decisions — National legislation precluding neighbours who are part of the public concerned from those rights — Unlawful

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92, Arts 1(2), and 11(1))

Article 11 of Directive 2011/92 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which an administrative decision declaring that a particular project does not require an environmental impact assessment, which is binding on neighbours who were precluded from bringing an action against that administrative decision, where those neighbours, who are part of the ‘public concerned’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive, satisfy the criteria laid down by national law concerning ‘sufficient interest’ or ‘impairment of a right’. It is for the national court to verify whether that condition is fulfilled in the case before it. Where it is so fulfilled, that court must hold that the administrative decision not to carry out such an assessment is not binding on those neighbours.

Although Member States have a significant discretion to determine what constitutes ‘sufficient interest’ or ‘impairment of a right’, that discretion is limited by the need to respect the objective of ensuring wide access to justice for the public concerned. In that regard, although the national legislature is entitled, inter alia, to confine the rights whose infringement may be relied on by an individual contesting one of the decisions, acts or omissions referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2011/92 to individual public-law rights, that is to say, individual rights which, under national law, can be categorised as individual public-law rights, the provisions of that article relating to the rights to bring actions of members of the public concerned by the decisions, acts or omissions which fall within that directive’s scope cannot be interpreted restrictively.

Consequently, national legislation restricting the right to bring an action against decisions examining whether an environmental impact assessment need be carried out in relation to a project only to the project applicants, the participating authorities, the ombudsman for the environment and the municipality concerned, excluding a large number of individuals, including, in particular, ‘neighbours’ who may meet the conditions laid down in Article 11(1) of Directive 2011/92 is incompatible with Directive 2011/92.

(see paras 38-40, 42, 43, 51, operative part)