Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster and Yvonne Linster.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
Celex Number61998CJ0287
ECLIECLI:EU:C:2000:468
Docket NumberC-287/98
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)
Procedure TypeReference for a preliminary ruling
Date19 September 2000

Judgment of the Court of 19 September 2000. - Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster and Yvonne Linster. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal d'arrondissement de Luxembourg - Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. - Environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects - Specific act of national legislation - Effect of the directive. - Case C-287/98.

European Court reports 2000 Page I-06917


Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part

Keywords

1. Environment - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Directive 85/337 - Assessment procedure - Discretion of the Member States - Power of national courts to review whether the limits of the discretion are observed

(Council Directive 85/337, Arts 5 and 6(2))

2. Community law - Interpretation - Principle of uniform interpretation

3. Environment - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Directive 85/337 - Scope - Projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation - Not covered

(Council Directive 85/337, Art. 1(5))

Summary

1. A national court, called on to examine the legality of a procedure for the expropriation in the public interest, in connection with the construction of a motorway, of immovable property belonging to a private individual, may review whether the national legislature kept within the limits of the discretion set by Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, in particular where prior assessment of the environmental impact of the project has not been carried out, the information gathered in accordance with Article 5 has not been made available to the public and the members of the public concerned have not had an opportunity to express an opinion before the project is initiated, contrary to the requirements of Article 6(2) of Directive 85/337.

( see para. 39 and operative part 1 )

2. The need for uniform application of Community law and the principle of equality require that the terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given a uniform and autonomous interpretation throughout the Community; that interpretation must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the legislation in question.

( see para. 43 )

3. On a proper construction of Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - which excludes from the directive's scope projects whose details are adopted by a specific act of national legislation - a measure adopted by a parliament after public parliamentary debate constitutes a specific act of national legislation within the meaning of that provision where the legislative process has enabled the objectives pursued by Directive 85/337, including that of supplying information, to be achieved, and the information available to the parliament at the time when the details of the project were adopted was equivalent to that which would have been submitted to the competent authority in an ordinary procedure for granting consent for a project.

( see para. 59 and operative part 3 )

Parties

In Case C-287/98,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunal d'Arrondissement de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

and

Berthe Linster,

Aloyse Linster,

Yvonne Linster,

on the interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), in particular Article 1(5) thereof, and of Articles 177 and 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC) as regards the effect to be accorded to that directive,

THE COURT,

composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Léger,

Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

- the State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by T. Frieders-Scheifer and P. Kinsch, of the Luxembourg Bar,

- Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster and Yvonne Linster, by M. Elvinger, of the Luxembourg Bar,

- the United Kingdom Government, by J.E. Collins, Assistant Treasury Solicitor, acting as Agent, and D. Wyatt QC, and

- the Commission of the European Communities, by P. Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, and O. Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment its Legal Service, acting as Agents,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, of Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster and Yvonne Linster, of the United Kingdom Government and of the Commission at the hearing on 12 October 1999,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 January 2000,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

1 By order of 15 July 1998, received at the Court on 27 July 1998, the Tribunal d'Arrondissement de Luxembourg (District Court, Luxembourg) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) a number of questions on the interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40; hereinafter the Directive), in particular Article 1(5) thereof, and of Articles 177 and 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC) as regards the effect to be accorded to the Directive.

2 Those questions were raised in proceedings between the State of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg and Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster and Yvonne Linster (hereinafter the Linsters) concerning the expropriation of parcels of land belonging to them for the purpose of construction of Section II - Hellange to Mondorf-les-Bains - of the motorway link between the South Distributor Road and the German road network (hereinafter the motorway link with Saarland).

Relevant provisions

The Directive

3 As stated in Article 1(1) thereof, the Directive applies to the assessment of the environmental effects of those public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment.

4 Article 1(2) of the Directive defines project as:

- the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes,

- other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources.

5 Article 1(5) provides that the Directive shall not apply to projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation, since the objectives of [the] Directive, including that of supplying information, are achieved through the legislative process.

6 Article 2(1) states:

Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects.

These projects are defined in Article 4.

7 Under Article 4(1), projects of the classes listed in Annex I to the Directive are as a rule to be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Those projects include the construction of motorways, express roads ..., referred to in paragraph 7 of Annex I.

8 In essence, Article 5 of the Directive specifies the information to be provided as a minimum by the developer; Article 6 requires the Member States to take the measures necessary to ensure that the authorities and members of the public concerned are informed and are able to express an opinion before the project is initiated; Article 8 requires the competent authorities to...

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
86 cases
  • Pia Messner v Firma Stefan Krüger.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 18 February 2009
    ...42 – Voir également Maderbacher et Otto (op. cit. note 27), point 118. 43 – Voir, en particulier, arrêt du 19 septembre 2000, Linster (C-287/98, Rec. p. I-6917, point 43). 44 – Voir points 60 et 61 des présentes conclusions. 45 – Voir également H.-W. Micklitz (op. cit. note 9), point 37. 46......
  • Padawan SL v Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE).
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 21 October 2010
    ...la réglementation en cause (voir, notamment, arrêts du 18 janvier 1984, Ekro, 327/82, Rec. p. 107, point 11; du 19 septembre 2000, Linster, C-287/98, Rec. p. I-6917, point 43, et du 2 avril 2009, A, C‑523/07, Rec. p. I‑2805, point 34). 33 Il résulte de cette jurisprudence que la notion de «......
  • Georgios Orfanopoulos and Others (C-482/01) and Raffaele Oliveri (C-493/01) v Land Baden-Württemberg.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 11 September 2003
    ...31; véanse asimismo las sentencias de 18 de enero de 1984, Ekro (327/82, Rec. p. 107), apartado 11, y de 19 de septiembre de 2000, Linster (C‑287/98, Rec. p. I‑6917), apartado 43. 27 – El subrayado es mío. Sentencias Royer, citada en la nota 11 supra, apartado 59; de 5 de marzo de 1980, Pec......
  • Marktgemeinde Straßwalchen and Others v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 9 October 2014
    ...L 124, p. 1). ( 3 ) Ya existe en torno a un centenar de sentencias y autos en los que se menciona esta Directiva. ( 4 ) Sentencias Linster (C‑287/98, EU:C:2000:468), apartado 43; Umweltanwalt von Kärnten (C‑205/08, EU:C:2009:767), apartado 48, y Edwards (C‑260/11, EU:C:2013:221), apartado (......
  • Get Started for Free
11 books & journal articles
  • La directiva 2014/52 de evaluación de impacto ambiental de proyectos
    • European Union
    • La directiva de la Unión Europea de evaluación de impacto ambiental de proyectos: balance de treinta años
    • 13 October 2016
    ...potencial (puedan) que no cualifica con ningún otro adjetivo. [29] Directiva 85/337, art. 1.5; Directiva 2011/92, art. 1.4. [30] Caso C-287/98, Linster v. [31] Art. 7. [32] I. LASAGABASTER, A. GARCÍA URETA e I. LAZKANO, Derecho ambiental. Parte general (Lete, 2004), 216-219. [33] A. GARCÍA ......
  • General Principles
    • European Union
    • Environmental assessments of plans, programmes and projects. Rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union
    • 6 November 2020
    ...interpretation must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the legislation in question. ( Linster , C-287/98, EU:C:2000:468, paragraph 43; Leth , C-420/11, EU:C:2013:166, paragraph 24, Marktgemeinde Stra Ⱦ walchen and Others ,C-531/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:79, paragraph......
  • The EIA directive
    • European Union
    • Environmental assessments of plans, programmes and projects. Rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union
    • 6 November 2020
    ...or location sh ould be made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects . ( Linster , C-287/98, EU:C:2000:468, paragraph 52; Commission v Italy, C-486/04, EU:C:2006:732, paragraph 36; Commission v Ireland, C-215/06, EU:C:2008:380, paragrap......
  • The SEA directive
    • European Union
    • Environmental assessments of plans, programmes and projects. Rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union
    • 6 November 2020
    ...&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3329355 2000 Judgment of the Court of 19 September 2000, Case C-287/98, [ECLI:EU:C:2000:468] Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster and Yvonne Linster. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal d'arrondissement de Luxembourg - Grand Duchy of ......
  • Get Started for Free
1 provisions