Peter Sweetman and Others v An Bord Pleanála.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
Celex Number62011CJ0258
ECLIECLI:EU:C:2013:220
Docket NumberC-258/11
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)
Procedure TypeReference for a preliminary ruling
Date11 April 2013
62011CJ0258

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

11 April 2013 ( *1 )

‛Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 6 — Conservation of natural habitats — Special areas of conservation — Assessment of the implications for a protected site of a plan or project — Criteria to be applied when assessing the likelihood that such a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned — Lough Corrib site — N6 Galway City Outer Bypass road scheme’

In Case C-258/11,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Supreme Court (Ireland), made by decision of 13 May 2011, received at the Court on 26 May 2011, in the proceedings

Peter Sweetman,

Ireland,

Attorney General,

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

v

An Bord Pleanála,

notice parties:

Galway County Council,

Galway City Council,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, acting as the President of the Third Chamber, K. Lenaerts, G. Arestis (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and T. von Danwitz, Judges,

Advocate General: E. Sharpston,

Registrar: K. Malacek, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 12 September 2012,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

Mr Sweetman, by B. Harrington, Solicitor, and R. Lyons SC,

Ireland, the Attorney General and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, by E. Creedon, acting as Agent, and G. Simons SC and M. Gray BL,

An Bord Pleanála, by A. Doyle and O. Doyle, Solicitors, and N. Butler SC,

Galway County Council and Galway City Council, by V. Raine and A. Casey, acting as Agents, E. Keane SC and B. Kennedy BL,

the Greek Government, by G. Karipsiades, acting as Agent,

the United Kingdom Government, by H. Walker, acting as Agent, and K. Smith, Barrister,

the European Commission, by S. Petrova and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 22 November 2012,

gives the following

Judgment

1

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7; ‘the Habitats Directive’).

2

The request has been made in proceedings between (i) Mr Sweetman, Ireland, the Attorney General and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and (ii) An Bord Pleanála (the Irish Planning Board), supported by Galway County Council and Galway City Council, concerning An Bord Pleanála’s decision to grant development consent for the N6 Galway City Outer Bypass road scheme.

Legal context

European Union law

3

The third recital in the preamble to the Habitats Directive states:

‘… the main aim of this Directive being to promote the maintenance of biodiversity, taking account of economic, social, cultural and regional requirements, this Directive makes a contribution to the general objective of sustainable development; … the maintenance of such biodiversity may in certain cases require the maintenance, or indeed the encouragement, of human activities’.

4

Article 1(d), (e), (k) and (l) of the Habitats Directive provide:

‘For the purpose of this Directive:

(d)

priority natural habitat types means natural habitat types in danger of disappearance, which are present on the territory referred to in Article 2 and for the conservation of which the Community has particular responsibility in view of the proportion of their natural range which falls within the territory referred to in Article 2; these priority natural habitat types are indicated by an asterisk (*) in Annex I;

(e)

conservation status of a natural habitat means the sum of the influences acting on a natural habitat and its typical species that may affect its long-term natural distribution, structure and functions as well as the long-term survival of its typical species within the territory referred to in Article 2.

The conservative status of a natural habitat will be taken as “favourable” when:

its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing, and

the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and

the conservation status of its typical species is favourable as defined in (i);

...

(k)

site of Community importance [“SCI”] means a site which, in the biogeographical region or regions to which is belongs, contributes significantly to the maintenance or restoration at a favourable conservation status of a natural habitat type in Annex I or of a species in Annex II and may also contribute significantly to the coherence of Natura 2000 referred to in Article 3, and/or contributes significantly to the maintenance of biological diversity within the biogeographic region or regions concerned.

...

(l)

special area of conservation means a site of Community importance designated by the Member States through a statutory, administrative and/or contractual act where the necessary conservation measures are applied for the maintenance or restoration, at a favourable conservation status, of the natural habitats and/or the populations of the species for which the site is designated’.

5

Article 2 of the Habitats Directive is worded as follows:

‘1. The aim of this Directive shall be to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies.

2. Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall be designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest.

3. Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics.’

6

Article 3(1) of the Habitats Directive states:

‘A coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation shall be set up under the title Natura 2000. This network … shall enable the natural habitat types and the species’ habitats concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

The Natura 2000 network shall include the special protection areas classified by the Member States pursuant to [Council] Directive 79/409/EEC [of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1)].’

7

Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive provide:

‘2. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive.

3. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.

4. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.

Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.’

8

Annex I to the Habitats Directive, entitled ‘Natural habitat types of Community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation’, designates ‘[l]imestone pavements’ as a priority habitat type, under code 8240.

Irish law

9

The European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997, in the version applicable at the material time (‘the 1997 Regulations’), implement the obligations of the Habitats Directive in Irish law.

10

Regulation 30 of the 1997 Regulations, which transposed the requirements of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, provides:

‘(1) Where a proposed road development in respect of which an application for the approval of the [competent authority] has been made in accordance with section 51 of the Roads Act, 1993, is neither directly connected with nor necessary to the management of a European site but likely to have a significant effect thereon either individually or...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
16 cases
  • Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 29 November 2018.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • November 29, 2018
    ...July 2014, Commission v Greece (C‑600/12, not published, EU:C:2014:2086, paragraph 75). 77 Judgments of 11 April 2013, Sweetman and Others (C‑258/11, EU:C:2013:220, paragraph 44); of 21 July 2016, Orleans and Others (C‑387/15 and C‑388/15, EU:C:2016:583, paragraph 50); and of 17 April 2018,......
  • Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta delivered on 9 February 2023.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • February 9, 2023
    ...de Białowieża) (C‑441/17, EU:C:2018:255, point 207). 35 Voir conclusions de l’avocate générale Sharpston dans l’affaire Sweetman e.a. (C‑258/11, EU:C:2012:743, points 43 à 45), et celles de l’avocat général Tanchev dans l’affaire Grace et Sweetman (C‑164/17, EU:C:2018:274, point 50). Voir, ......
  • Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta delivered on 20 April 2023.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • April 20, 2023
    ...EU:C:2017:301), en particular apartados 36 a 38 y 45. 36 Véase, en particular, la sentencia de 11 de abril de 2013, Sweetman y otros (C‑258/11, EU:C:2013:220), apartado 45, en la que el Tribunal de Justicia declaró que «el objetivo de conservación consiste en el mantenimiento de las caracte......
  • Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • November 12, 2019
    ...du 7 septembre 2004, Waddenvereniging et Vogelbeschermingsvereniging (C‑127/02, EU:C:2004:482, point 58) ; du 11 avril 2013, Sweetman e.a. (C‑258/11, EU:C:2013:220, point 41), et du 17 avril 2018, Commission/Pologne (Forêt de Białowieża) (C‑441/17, EU:C:2018:255, point 29 Voir, en ce sens, ......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • La transposición de la directiva en el estado español
    • European Union
    • La directiva de la Unión Europea de evaluación de impacto ambiental de proyectos: balance de treinta años
    • October 13, 2016
    ...proyecto sobre el lugar protegido. [82] J. AGUDO GONZÁLEZ, «Evaluación de impacto...», op. cit., 2000. [83] STJUE de 11 de abril de 2013, C-258/11, Peter Sweetman, apdos. 44-48. Se trataba del LIC Lough Corrib, que fue clasificado como hábitat prioritario debido a la existencia en él de un ......