Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — WWF Italia o.n.l.u.s. and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS)

(Case C-411/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6 - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Special areas of conservation - Construction of a road section - Assessment of the impact of that project on the special area of conservation concerned - Authorisation - Imperative reasons of overriding public interest)

(2020/C 297/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: WWF Italia o.n.l.u.s., Lega Italiana Protezione Uccelli o.n.l.u.s., Gruppo di Intervento Giuridico o.n.l.u.s., Italia Nostra o.n.l.u.s., Forum Ambientalista, FC and Others

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows a procedure for authorisation of a plan or project, the impact of which on a special area of conservation cannot be mitigated and in respect of which the competent public authority has already expressed a negative opinion, to continue for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, unless there is an alternative solution with fewer disadvantages for the integrity of the area concerned, which it falls to the referring court to verify.

When a plan or project has, pursuant to Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43, received a negative assessment of its impact on a special area of conservation and the Member State concerned has nevertheless decided, under Article 6(4), to carry out that project for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, Article 6 of that directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation allowing that plan or project, after its negative assessment under Article 6(3) and before its final adoption pursuant to Article 6(4), to be supplemented by measures mitigating its impact on that area and for the assessment of its impact on that area to continue. By contrast, Article 6 of Directive 92/43 does not preclude, in the same situation, national legislation allowing compensatory measures in the context of the same decision to be defined, provided that the other conditions for implementing Article 6(4) of that directive are also fulfilled.

Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing that the proponent of the works must carry out an impact assessment of the plan or project in question on the special area of conservation concerned, on the basis of which the competent authority must then carry out an assessment of that impact. The directive does, by contrast, preclude national legislation allowing the proponent of the works to be tasked with taking into account, in the final plan or project, requirements, observations and recommendations in relation to landscaping and the environment, after the plan or project has received a negative assessment by the competent authority, without that plan or project, thus modified, being required to undergo a new assessment by that authority.

Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that, although it is for the Member States to designate the authority with competence to assess the impact of a plan or project on a special area of conservation in compliance with the criteria set out in the Court’s case-law, it precludes, by contrast, any authority from continuing or supplementing that assessment once that assessment has been carried out.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.