Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014CN0399

Case C-399/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2014  — Grüne Liga Sachsen e. V. and Others v Freistaat Sachsen

OJ C 448, 15.12.2014, p. 2–3 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/2


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2014 — Grüne Liga Sachsen e. V. and Others v Freistaat Sachsen

(Case C-399/14)

(2014/C 448/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grüne Liga Sachsen e. V. and Others

Defendant: Freistaat Sachsen

Intervener: Landeshauptstadt Dresden

Other party: Der Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (‘the Habitats Directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that a construction project for a bridge which does not directly serve the management of the site and which was authorised before that site was included in the list of sites of Community importance must be the subject of an impact assessment prior to its implementation if the site was included in that list after authorisation was granted but before the project was implemented and only a risk assessment/preliminary assessment was undertaken before the authorisation was granted?

2.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

When undertaking a subsequent review, must the national authority observe the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive where it wanted to use those provisions as a precautionary basis for the risk assessment/preliminary assessment preceding the grant of the authorisation?

3.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 2 in the negative:

What requirements should be applied under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive to a subsequent review of an authorisation granted for a project and to what date should the review relate?

4.

In the context of supplementary proceedings seeking to remedy an error found in a subsequent review under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive or in an impact assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, is account to be taken, by appropriate amendments to the review requirements, of the fact that the structure was permitted to be constructed and put into service because the planning decision was immediately enforceable and proceedings for interim measures had been dismissed with final effect? In any event, does that apply to an alternative subsequent review which is necessary in the context of a decision under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive?


(1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


Top