EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013CN0570

Case C-570/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Karoline Gruber

OJ C 24, 25.1.2014, p. 5–6 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)



Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Karoline Gruber

(Case C-570/13)

2014/C 24/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court


Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Karoline Gruber

Defendant: Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten

Mitbeteiligte Partei: EMA Beratungs- und Handels GmbH

Weitere Partei: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

Questions referred


Does European Union law, in particular 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 (Directive 2011/92), (1) in particular Article 11 thereof, preclude a provision of national law under which a decision finding that a particular project does not require an environmental impact assessment is also binding on neighbours who did not have the status of parties in the previous proceedings for a declaratory decision and can be relied on as against them in subsequent development consent proceedings even though they have the opportunity to raise their objections to the project in those consent proceedings (the objection in the main proceedings being that the effects of the project will pose a risk to the appellant’s life, health or property or represent an unreasonable nuisance to her in the form of smell, noise, smoke, dust, vibration or otherwise)?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:


Does European Union law, in particular Directive 2011/92, if applied directly, require that the binding effect referred to in Question 1 be invalidated?

(1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.