Case C‑664/15

Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation

v

Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — EU action in the field of water policy — Article 4(1) and Article 14(1) — Obligations to prevent deterioration of the status of bodies of surface water and encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the directive — Aarhus Convention — Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters — Article 6 and Article 9(3) and (4) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Project that is likely to have an impact on water status — Administrative procedure for a permit — Environmental organisation — Application seeking to secure status as a party to the administrative procedure — Possibility of relying on rights deriving from Directive 2000/60/EC — Extinction of the status of party to the procedure and of the right to bring an action if those rights are not exercised within good time during the administrative procedure)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 20 December 2017

1. Environment—EU action in the field of water policy—Directive 2000/60—Environmental objectives relating to surface water—Binding nature of the provisions laying down those objectives and the obligation on Member States to achieve them

   (Art. 4(3) TEU and Art. 19(1) TEU; Art. 288 TFEU; Directive 2000/60 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Recitals 11, 19 and 27 and Arts 1 and 4(1)(a)(i) to (iii))

2. Environment—Aarhus Convention—Access to justice—Remedies—Decision granting a permit for a project that is likely to have an impact on water status—National legislation making it impossible for an environmental organisation to bring an action—Not permissible

   (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Aarhus Convention, Art. 9(3); Directive 2000/60 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 4; Council Decision 2005/370)

3. Environment—Aarhus Convention—Access to justice—Remedies—Obligation on national courts to disapply provisions of national law preventing the right to bring an action from being exercised—Scope

   (Aarhus Convention, Art. 9(3); Council Decision 2005/370)

4. Environment—Aarhus Convention—Access to justice—Remedies—Decision granting a permit for a project likely to have an impact on water status—National legislation limiting the right to bring an action to those who have participated in the procedure for the grant of the permit—Not permissible

   (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Aarhus Convention, Art. 9(3); Directive 2000/60 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 14(1); Council Decision 2005/370)

5. Environment—Aarhus Convention—Access to justice—Remedies—Decision granting a permit for a project that is likely to have an impact on water status—Limitation on the right to bring an action to those who participated in the procedure for the grant of the permit—National legislation causing a person to lose the right to bring an action when that person fails to submit objections in good time in the context of that procedure—Not permissible

   (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Aarhus Convention Art. 9(3) and (4); Council Decision 2005/370)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 31-35)

2.  Article 9(3) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed at Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a duly constituted environmental organisation operating in accordance with the requirements of national law must be able to contest before a court a decision granting a permit for a project that may be contrary to the obligation to prevent the deterioration of the status of bodies of water as set out in Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

   Although they imply that contracting states retain discretion as to the implementation of that provision, the words ‘criteria, if any, laid down in its national law’ in Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention cannot allow those states to impose criteria so strict that it would be effectively impossible for environmental organisations to contest the actions or omissions that are the subject of that provision.

   (see paras 48, 58, operative part 1)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 54-57)

4.  The combined provisions of Article 9(3) of that convention approved by Decision 2005/370, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as precluding national procedural rules that deprive, in situations such as that in question in the main action, environmental organisations of the right to participate, as a party to the procedure, in a permit procedure that is intended to implement Directive 2000/60 and limit the right to bring proceedings contesting decisions resulting from such procedure solely to persons who do have that status.

   (see para. 81, operative part 2)

5.  Subject to verification by the referring court of the relevant matters of fact and national law, Article 9(3) and (4) of that convention approved by Decision 2005/370, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that in question in the main action, a national procedural rule that imposes a time limit on an environmental organisation, pursuant to which a person loses the status of party to the procedure and therefore cannot bring an action against the decision resulting from that procedure if it failed to submit objections in good time following the opening of the administrative procedure and, at the very latest, during the oral phase of that procedure.

   (see para. 101, operative part 3)