Compliance with those requirements is subject to review by national courts asked to examine the legality of a compulsory purchase procedure
Berthe, Aloyse and Yvonne Linster own plots of land in Hellange. The State of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg brought proceedings before the Tribunal d'Arrondissement de Luxembourg (District Court, Luxembourg) for the compulsory acquisition of that land.
On 13 July 1995 the Chamber of Deputies of the Grand-Duchy adopted a Law providing for a motorway link between Rodange and Bettembourg. The deputies simultaneously adopted a motion calling on the Government to construct the southern option for this motorway link with Saarland. The Government later settled the definitive route of the motorway link and, consequently, the list of the plots of land and the owners concerned by the compulsory acquisition for the purpose of construction of the section from Hellange to Mondorf-les-Bains.
The District Court, called on to rule whether the procedure for the compulsory acquisition was lawful, asked the Court of Justice of the European Communities about various aspects of the Community legislation concerning the assessment of the effects of public and private projects on the environment.
The Community Directive provides that, where projects are likely to have significant effects on the environment, their environmental impact must be assessed and procedures for informing the public must be carried out. Under the legislation, those obligations do not apply to projects whose details are adopted by a specific act of national legislation since the legislative process will normally enable the objective of making information available to be achieved.
The Court recalled that a directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but leaves to the national authorities the choice of the form and methods which they intend to use. Private individuals must be able to rely before national courts on the obligations thereby imposed on the Member States and to establish whether the Member States have kept within the limits of the discretion accorded to them.
Thus, the Member States must adopt all the measures necessary to ensure that the public has access to the information required as a minimum when an application is made for consent to carry out a project, and members of the public are to have the opportunity to express an opinion before the project is begun. The Court held that the discretion available to the Member States is subject to review by the courts, which may find it necessary to check whether that discretion has been exceeded by the national authorities.
The Court, giving the term "specific act of national legislation" a uniform interpretation, stated that a provision limiting the Directive's scope must be interpreted restrictively: since the objectives of the Directive are deemed to be achieved through a legislative process, access to information must be ensured by that process. The legislature must therefore have available to it information equivalent to that which would be submitted to the competent authority in a normal procedure for granting consent for a project in order for it to be possible for the objectives of the Directive to be achieved.
The Court noted the information which a legislative act must contain as a minimum if the details of a project are to be adopted by it:
The wording of the legislative act in question must also demonstrate that the objectives are achieved.
The Court stated that the national court will therefore have to decide, in the case before it, whether the legislative process has allowed the objectives of the Directive to be achieved.
This press release is an unofficial document for media use which does not bind the Court of Justice. Languages available: French, German and English
For the full text of the judgment please consult our Internet site www.curia.eu.int at approximately 15.00 hrs today.
For further information, please contact Fionnuala Connolly, tel: (00352) 4303 3355; fax: (00352) 4303 2731