Case C‑411/17
Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL
and
Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen ASBL
v
Council of Ministers
(Request for a preliminary ruling
from the Cour constitutionnelle (Constitutional Court, Belgium))
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 29 July 2019
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Espoo Convention — Aarhus Convention — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 6(3) — Definition of ‘project’ — Assessment of the effects on the site concerned — Article 6(4) — Meaning of ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 2009/147/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Article 1(2)(a) — Definition of ‘project’ — Article 2(1) — Article 4(1) — Environmental impact assessment — Article 2(4) — Exemption from assessment — Phasing out of nuclear energy — National legislation providing, first, for restarting industrial production of electricity for a period of almost 10 years at a nuclear power station that had previously been shut down, with the effect of deferring by 10 years the date initially set by the national legislature for deactivating and ceasing production at that power station, and second, for deferral, also by 10 years, of the date initially set by the legislature for deactivating and ceasing industrial production of electricity at an active power station — No environmental impact assessment)
1. Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92 — Project — Concept — Legislative measures providing for the restarting of one nuclear power station and the deferral of the deactivation of another nuclear power station — Upgrading works inextricably linked to those measures — Included — Requirement to subsequently issue new consents in respect of certain works — No effects
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92, Art. 1(2)(a), first indent)
(see paragraphs 61-71)
2. Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92 — Requirement to conduct an assessment in respect of projects in the classes listed in Annex I — Projects concerning nuclear power stations — Changes or extensions to projects — Concept — Extension of the consent for electricity production by a nuclear power plant — Included
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92, Arts 2(1), 4(1) and 7(1) and Annexe I, points (2)(b) and (24))
(see paragraphs 73-76, 78-81)
3. Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92 — Obligation for the competent authorities to carry out the assessment prior to granting consent — Concept of consent — Legislation determining the essential characteristics of the project — Included — Need to issue subsequent consents — No effects
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92, Arts 1(2)(c) and 2(1))
(see paragraphs 82-84, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, operative part 1)
4. Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92 — Obligation upon the competent authorities to carry out the assessment prior to granting consent — Possibility of exemption — Risk to the security of the electricity supply — Included — Conditions
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92, Arts 2(4) and (7))
(see paragraph 102, operative part 2)
5. Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92 — Scope — Project adopted by a national legislative act — Not included — Conditions — Determination by the national court
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92, Art. 1(4))
(see paragraphs 104-108, 110, 111, 114, operative part 3)
6. Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Special areas of conservation — Obligations of the Member States — Appropriate assessment of the implications for a site arising from a plan or project — Concept of project — Extension of the consent for electricity production by a nuclear power plant — Included — Conditions
(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(3); European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92, Art. 1(2)(a))
(see paragraphs 124-133)
7. Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Special areas of conservation — Obligations of the Member States — Appropriate assessment of the implications for a site arising from a plan or project — Conditions — Risk of significant effects on the site concerned — Concept — Extension of the consent for electricity production by a nuclear power plant located close to a protected site — Included
(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(3))
(see paragraphs 134-139)
8. Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Special areas of conservation — Obligations of the Member States — Appropriate assessment of the implications for a site arising from a plan or project — Need to conduct the assessment before the plan or project is approved by the competent authorities
(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(3))
(see paragraphs 140-145, operative part 4)
9. Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Authorisation of a plan or project on a protected site for imperative reasons of overriding public interest — Imperative reasons of overriding public interest — Concept — Security of the electricity supply — Included — Conditions — Public safety — Genuine and serious threat of rupture of the electricity supply — Included
(Art. 194(1)(b), TFEU; Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(4))
(see paragraphs 155-159, operative part 5)
10. Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Directives 92/43 and 2011/92 — Annulment by the national court of measures that are incompatible with obligations arising from directives — Possibility of maintaining the effects of the measures in question — Conditions
(Art. 4(3) TEU; Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(3); European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92)
(see paragraphs 170-182, operative part 6)
Résumé
By its judgment in Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen (C‑411/17), delivered on 29 July 2019, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice ruled on the interpretation of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) and of Directive 2011/92 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. (2) That judgment was delivered in connection with proceedings between two associations, Inter Environnement Wallonie ASBL and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen ASBL, the applicants in the main proceedings, whose purpose is the protection of the environment and living conditions, and the Conseil des ministres (Council of Ministers, Belgium) in relation to legislation whereby the Kingdom of Belgium, first, provided for the restarting of industrial production of electricity, for a period of almost 10 years, at a nuclear power station that had previously been shut down, and second, for deferral by 10 years of the date initially set for deactivating and ceasing industrial production of electricity at an active nuclear power station. Those associations, in essence, complain that the Belgian authorities adopted that legislation without complying with the requirements to conduct a prior assessment laid down in those directives.
In that context, the Court held that the measures at issue concerning the extension of industrial production of electricity by a nuclear power station constitute a ‘project’ within the meaning of Directives 2011/92 and 92/43, since they necessarily involve major works, altering the physical aspect of the sites concerned. Such a project must, in principle, be made subject to an assessment of the effects on the environment and on the protected sites concerned prior to the adoption of those measures. The fact that the implementation of those measures involves subsequent acts, such as the issue, for one of the power stations in question, of a new specific consent for the production of electricity for industrial purposes, is not decisive in that respect. Work that is inextricably linked to those measures must also be made subject to such an assessment before the adoption of the measures if the nature and potential effects of that work on the environment and on the protected sites are sufficiently identifiable at that stage.
A Member State may, under Directive 2011/92, exempt a project from the requirement to conduct an environmental impact assessment in order to ensure the security of its electricity supply only where it can demonstrate that the risk to the security of that supply is reasonably probable and that the project in question is sufficiently urgent to justify not carrying out the assessment. However, the possibility of granting such an exemption is without prejudice to the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment in respect of projects which, like the project at issue in the main proceedings, have transboundary effects.
Furthermore, while the objective of ensuring the security of a Member State’s electricity supply at all times constitutes an imperative reason of overriding public interest within the meaning of Directive 92/43, which justifies proceeding with the project in spite of a negative assessment and in the absence of alternative solutions, that is not so where the protected site likely to be affected by the project hosts a priority natural habitat type or a priority species. In such a case, only the need to nullify a genuine and serious threat of rupture of the electricity supply in the Member State concerned would constitute a public security ground, within the meaning of that directive, and may constitute such a justification. Lastly, the Court held that if domestic law allows it, a national court may, by way of exception, maintain the effects of measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, adopted in breach of the obligations laid down by Directive 2011/92 and Directive 92/43, where such maintenance is justified by overriding considerations relating to the need to nullify a genuine and serious threat of rupture of the electricity supply in the Member State concerned, which cannot be remedied by any other means or alternatives, particularly in the context of the internal market. The effects may, however, be maintained only for as long as is strictly necessary to remedy the breach.