ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
29 September 2016 (*)
(Expedited procedure)
In Case C‑470/16,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the High Court of Ireland, made by decision of 29 July 2016, received at the Court on 22 August 2016, in the proceedings
North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited,
Maura Sheehy,
v
An Bord Pleanála,
The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources,
Ireland,
The Attorney General,
notice party:
Eirgrid Plc,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
after hearing the Judge-Rapporteur, J.-C. Bonichot, and the Advocate General, M. Wathelet,
makes the following
Order
1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 11 of 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 (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1) and the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1) (‘the Aarhus Convention’).
2 The request has been made in proceedings between North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited and Maura Sheehy and An Bord Pleanála, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Ireland, and the Attorney General concerning the determination of costs associated with an application for judicial review of the consent process for the installation of an electricity interconnector by virtue of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC and amending Regulations (EC) No 713/2009, (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009 (OJ 2013 L 115, p. 39).
3 It follows from the decision of the referring court that, in order to assess the environmental impact of that project, a planning inquiry was ordered pursuant to the obligations arising from Directive 2011/92.
4 Considering that the information initially included in the environmental impact assessment report had been modified, the applicants in the main proceedings sought to apply for judicial review aimed at bringing an end to the inquiry procedure.
5 By judgment of 12 May 2016, the High Court of Ireland refused to grant those applicants leave to apply for judicial review on the ground that it was premature, since Irish law requires that they wait until the planning body has adopted a final decision before bringing an action seeking to call into question the procedure which preceded it.
6 In the context of the dispute concerning the costs associated with that case, the High Court of Ireland decided to stay the proceedings and to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling questions concerning the interpretation of Directive 2011/92 and the Aarhus convention.
7 The referring court wishes, first, to know whether the entitlement under the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/92 to a not prohibitively expensive application for judicial review applies to the process before a national court whereby it is determined whether the particular action in question has been brought at the correct stage, since that problem is not expressly resolved by national legislation. Secondly, it seeks clarification as to the correct interpretation of the concept of ‘effective judicial protection’ within the meaning of Article 9 of the Aarhus convention.
8 The High Court of Ireland requests, furthermore, that the present reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with pursuant to the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
9 In support of its request, the referring court notes that the project at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it concerns guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure, must be regarded as being of common interest for the European Union and requiring a certain degree of priority.
10 However, given that the expedited procedure constitutes a derogation, that circumstance cannot, in itself, justify the treatment of the present case pursuant to the expedited procedure.
11 Where the referring court has not established that there is an imminent risk to the environment, the mere interest of litigants in determining more quickly the scope of their rights under EU law — in the present case the right to apply for judicial review that is not prohibitively expensive as regards the assessment of environmental impact — is not such as to allow the implementation of Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure (see, inter alia, orders of the President of the Court of 16 March 2010, Affatato, C‑3/10, not published, EU:C:2010:144, paragraph 13, and 28 November 2013, Sähköalojen ammattiliitto, C‑396/13, not published, EU:C:2013:811, paragraph 15).
12 In those circumstances, the request of the High Court of Ireland to have an expedited procedure applied to the present reference for a preliminary ruling cannot be granted.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
The request of the High Court of Ireland that Case C‑470/16 be determined pursuant to the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice is rejected.
Luxembourg, 29 September 2016.
[Signatures]