Case C‑461/17

Brian Holohan and Others

v

An Bord Pleanála

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Conservation of wild fauna and flora — Road construction project — Appropriate assessment of effects on the environment — Extent of the obligation to state reasons — Directive 2011/92/EU — Assessment of the implications of certain projects — Annex IV, Point 3 — Article 5(3)(d) — Meaning of the concept of ‘main alternatives’)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 7 November 2018

1.        Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Special areas of conservation — Obligations of the Member States — Assessment of a project’s implications for a site — Authorisation for a plan or project on a protected site — Condition — No adverse effect on the integrity of the site

(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(3))

2.        Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Appropriate assessment of the implications for a site arising from a plan or project — Identification of the aspects which can affect the site’s conservation objectives — Scope — Catalogue of the entirety of habitat types and species for which a site is protected — Examination of the implications of the project for other species on that site or outside its boundaries — Condition — Implications liable to affect the conservation objectives of the site

(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(3))

3.        Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Special areas of conservation — Obligations of the Member States — Assessment of a project’s implications for a site — Authorisation for a plan or project on a protected site — Determination of parameters by subsequent decision of the developer — Whether permissible — Conditions

(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(3))

4.        Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Appropriate assessment of the implications for a site arising from a plan or project — Identification of the aspects which can affect the site’s conservation objectives — Obligation to state reasons — Scope

(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(3))

5.        Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92 — Obligations of the developer — Information supplied on the significant effects of the project on the environment — Scope

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92, Art. 5(1) and (3) and Annex IV)

6.        Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92 — Obligations of the developer — Examination of the main alternatives — Scope — Statement of reasons

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92, Art. 5(3)(d))

1.      See the text of the judgment.

(see paras 33-35)

2.      Article 6(3) 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 meaning that an ‘appropriate assessment’ must, on the one hand, catalogue the entirety of habitat types and species for which a site is protected, and, on the other, identify and examine both the implications of the proposed project for the species present on that site, and for which that site has not been listed, and the implications for habitat types and species to be found outside the boundaries of that site, provided that those implications are liable to affect the conservation objectives of the site.

(see para. 40, operative part 1)

3.      Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority is permitted to grant to a plan or project consent which leaves the developer free to determine subsequently certain parameters relating to the construction phase, such as the location of the construction compound and haul routes, only if that authority is certain that the development consent granted establishes conditions that are strict enough to guarantee that those parameters will not adversely affect the integrity of the site.

(see para. 47, operative part 2)

4.      Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authority rejects the findings in a scientific expert opinion recommending that additional information be obtained, the ‘appropriate assessment’ must include an explicit and detailed statement of reasons capable of dispelling all reasonable scientific doubt concerning the effects of the work envisaged on the site concerned.

(see para. 52, operative part 3)

5.      Article 5(1) and (3) of, and Annex IV to, 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the developer is obliged to supply information that expressly addresses the significant effects of its project on all species identified in the statement that is supplied pursuant to those provisions.

(see para. 59, operative part 4)

6.      Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the developer must supply information in relation to the environmental impact of both the chosen option and of all the main alternatives studied by the developer, together with the reasons for his choice, taking into account at least the environmental effects, even if such an alternative was rejected at an early stage.

(see para. 69, operative part 5)