Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court

1.1.1 Subject Matter This case concerns an action for annulment against Directive (EU) 2016/2284, the New nec Directive, brought by Poland and supported by Hungary and Romania. Poland alleged the infringement of several procedural and material norms by the establishing of the Directive. In particular Poland alleged the infringement of the duty to carry out a proper impact assessment and of the principle of sincere cooperation. It also alleged breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment. All plea were disbanded by the Court.

population of the relevant species breeding in the islands of the province of Åland as a baseline.
95 It follows that, at the relevant date, the authorities of the province of Åland did not have the data to calculate correctly the number of birds of the population in question for hunting.96 In those circumstances, it can be inferred that the Republic of Finland has failed to observe the condition relating to 'small numbers' set out in Article 9(1)(c) of the Birds Directive.
97 In the light of the foregoing, it is appropriate to find that, by recurrently granting authorisations for spring hunting of male common eiders in the province of Åland since 2011 and up to and including 2019, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) and Article 9(1)(c) of the Birds Directive.

2
On the After-care Duties in the Context of Landfilling Sites Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 May 2020 in Case C-15/19ama -Azienda Municipale Ambiente SpA

2.1
Subject Matter This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 10 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.The reference was made in proceedings between ama -Azienda Municipale Ambiente SpA ('ama'), the company responsible for the collection and landfill of solid urban waste service for the municipality of Rome (Italy), and Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti -Co.La.Ri., the operator of the Malagrotta landfill site (Lazio Region, Italy), regarding the increase in costs connected with the obligation on Co.La.Ri. to provide after-care for that landfill site for at least 30 years following its closure, rather than 10 years as originally planned.ama was ordered by an arbitration decision to pay eur 76 391 533.29 to Co.La.Ri. on the basis of the costs associated with the obligation on the latter to provide after-care for the landfill for a period of at least 30 years.ama contested that decision before the Corte d'appello di Roma (Court of Appeal, Rome, Italy), first and before the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy), later.Having doubts about the meaning of Directive 1999/31, the Supreme Court of Cassation asked, in essence, whether Articles 10 and 14 of Directive 1999/31 must be interpreted as precluding the interpretation of a provision of national law to the effect that a landfill site in operation at the date of transposition of that directive

3.1
Subject Matter This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 9(1) and 9(9) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU laying down transitional rules for the Union as a whole for the purposes of harmonization of the procedures for free allocation of allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC.That request was made in the context of a dispute between Spenner GmbH & Co. kg and the Federal Republic of Germany concerning an application for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances (hereinafter 'the emissions') free of charge to a cement clinker plant.In these circumstances, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the four questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling, two of which are reported in this overview.By the first question, the referring court is essentially asking whether Article 9(9) of Decision 2011/278 is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to substantial capacity extensions of an existing installation which occurred before the reference period which was chosen in accordance with Article 9(1) of that decision.Moreover, the referring court asks, essentially, whether Article 9(1) of Decision 2011/278 is to be interpreted as requiring the competent national authority to determine itself the relevant reference period to evaluate the historical levels of activity of a plant.
2) L'article 9, paragraphe 1, de la décision 2011/278 doit être interprété en ce sens qu'il n'impose pas à l'autorité nationale compétente de déterminer ellemême la période de référence pertinente pour évaluer les niveaux d'activité historiques d'une installation.must be interpreted as meaning that a mixture of waste paper, cardboard and paper products is included in this provision in which each type of waste falls under one of the first three indents of entry B3020 of Annex ix of the Basel Convention, reproduced in Annex V, Part 1, List B, of that Regulation, and which contains up to 10% of contaminating materials.

5
On This request was made in the context of a dispute between several private individuals and the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Land North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany), concerning a decision by the authorities of the Bezirksregierung Detmold (Detmold District Government, Germany), of 27 September 2016, with which the construction plan for a motorway section of approximately 3.7 kilometers was approved.In these circumstances, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) decided to suspend the judgment and to refer four questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.By its first question, the referring court asked whether Article 11(1 (b) of Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as allowing Member States to provide that an application for annulment of the authorization of a project for procedural defect is admissible only if the irregularity in question has deprived the applicant of his right to participate in the environmental decision-making process guaranteed by Article 6 of that directive.By its second question, the referring court asked whether Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as precluding the control of compliance with the obligations laid down therein from being able to intervene only after the project has been authorized.By its third question, the referring court asked whether Article 4(1)(b)(i) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as meaning that it must be regarded as a deterioration in the chemical status of a groundwater body due to a project exceeding a parameter of at least one of the environmental quality standards.It also asks whether it must be considered that a foreseeable increase in the concentration of a pollutant constitutes such a deterioration when the threshold fixed for the latter is already exceeded.Finally, by its fourth question, the referring court asked, essentially, whether Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/60, read in the light of Article 19 teu and Article 288 tfeu, is to be interpreted in meaning that members of the public concerned by a project must be able to assert, before the competent national courts, the violation of the obligations to prevent the deterioration of water bodies and to improve their status.
3) L'article 4, paragraphe 1, sous b), i), de la directive 2000/60 doit être interprété en ce sens que doit être considéré comme une détérioration de l'état chi- The dispute between the parties turned around the compatibility of national rules setting the condition of a minimum distance between wind turbines and buildings with a residential function with the above mentioned directives.In that context, the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Kielcach (Regional Administrative Court, Kielce, Poland) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer three questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, each concerning the compatibility of the mentioned national regulation with one of the directives.

7.1
Subject Matter This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 12(1) and Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/eec on the conservation of natural and semi-natural habitats and wild flora and fauna (hereinafter: the 'Habitats Directive').That request was made in the context of a dispute between, on the one hand, Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor, an association and, on the other hand, tm, a member of the Direcția pentru Monitorizarea și Protecția Animalelor (hereinafter 'the dmpa'), an animal welfare association, UN, a veterinarian, and the dmpa, regarding the capture and transport, under inappropriate conditions, of a wild animal belonging to the canis lupus (wolf) species in Romania.It is in this context that the Judecătoria Zărnești (Zărnești Court of First Instance) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling.By its question, the referring court asked, essentially, whether Article 12(1)(a) and Article 16 of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the capture and transport of a specimen of a protected animal species, such as the wolf, on the outskirts of an area populated by man or in such an area, may fall under the prohibition provided for by the first of those articles, in the absence of derogations granted by the competent national authority on the basis of the second of these.

8.1
Subject Matter This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2(a) and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.The request has been made in proceedings between A and others and the Gewestelijke stedenbouwkundige ambtenaar van het departement Ruimte Vlaanderen, afdeling Oost-Vlaanderen (regional town planning official of the Flanders Department of Land Planning, East Flanders Division, Belgium), concerning the latter´s decision to grant development consent to a generator and supplier of electricity for the purpose of the installation and operation of five wind turbines on a site that is near to A and others.Peculiar in this case is the fact that the Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen (Council for consent disputes) hearing the dispute asked the Court of Justice to reconsider its interpretation of the Directive so as to favour an interpretation that, in view of the national court, is closer to the intention of the EU legislature.Accordingly, the Court of Justice should adopt an interpretation that would restrict the scope of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42 to those acts whose adoption is mandatory pursuant to legislative or regulatory provisions, therefore excluding cases in which the adoption of those acts is non-compulsory.In those circumstances, the Council for consent disputes decided to stay the proceedings and to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.First, the referring court asked, in essence, whether Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 'plans and programmes' covers an order and circular, adopted by the government of a federated entity of a Member State, both of which contain various provisions concerning the installation and operation of wind turbines.Second, it asked, in essence, whether Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42 must be interpreted as meaning that an order and a circular, both of which contain various provisions regarding the installation and operation of wind turbines, including measures on shadow flicker, safety and noise level standards, constitute plans and programmes that must be subject to an environmental assessment in accordance with that provision.Finally, it asked, in essence, whether and under what conditions, if it is found that an environmental assessment within the meaning of Directive 2001/42 should have been carried out prior to the adoption of the order and circular on the basis of which the consent, which is contested before it, was granted for the installation and operation of wind turbines, with the result that those instruments and that consent do not comply with EU law, that court may maintain the effects of those instruments and that consent.
journal for european environmental & planning law 17 (2020) 443-460 fine is not paid, a custodial sentence for having caused, in the course of a property redevelopment project, the deterioration or destruction of resting places or breeding sites of the Cricetus cricetus (European hamster) species, which is on the list of protected animal species set out in Annex iv(a) to the Habitats Directive.In those circumstances, the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Administrative Court of Vienna) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.Only one of these questions was considered in need of an answer by the Court of Justice, specifically the first question.By its first question, the referring court asked, in essence, whether Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that the term 'resting place' referred to in that provision also includes resting places which are no longer occupied by one of the protected animal species listed in Annex iv(a) to that directive, such as the Cricetus cricetus (European hamster).

9.2
Judgment Article 12(1)(d) 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 the term 'resting places' referred to in that provision also includes resting places which are no longer occupied by one of the protected animal species listed in Annex iv(a) to that directive, such as the Cricetus cricetus (European hamster), where there is a sufficiently high probability that that species will return to such places, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

Subject Matter
The request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.This request was presented in the context of a dispute between wwf Italia Onlus, tand other environmental ngos, on the one hand, and the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (Italy) and to the Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (anas), on the other, regarding the legitimacy of the resolution of 1 December 2017, with which the Council of Ministers adopted the environmental compatibility provision of the preliminary draft road link north of Rome (Italy), according to the "green route", between Monte Romano Est (Italy) and Tarquinia Sud (Italy), and the resolution of 28 February 2018, with which the Interministerial Committee for Economic Planning (hereinafter 'the cipe') approved this preliminary draft.In these considerations, the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio has decided to suspend the procedure and to refer several questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.First, the referring court asked, essentially, whether Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, in conjunction with Directive 2009/147, where the latter is applicable the dispute in the main proceedings, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows the continuation, for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, of the authorization procedure for a plan or project whose impact on an area conservation special cannot be mitigated and on which the competent public authority has already expressed a negative opinion, where there is an alternative solution already approved from an environmental point of view.Second, the referring court essentially asked whether, where a plan or project has been the subject, pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, a negative assessment as to its impact on a special area of conservation and the Member State concerned has nevertheless decided, pursuant to paragraph 4 of that article, to carry it out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, Article 6 of that directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows the carrying out of further examinations and more in-depth studies on the effects of that plan or project on the final plan or project stage this area and the definition of adequate compensation and mitigation measures.Third, the referring court asked, in essence, whether the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation providing for the proponent to carry out a study the impact of the plan or project in question on Downloaded from Brill.com 11/01/2023 08:37:54PM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ the special conservation area concerned and incorporates, in the plan or in the final project, landscape and environmental prescriptions, observations and recommendations, after it has been the subject of a negative assessment by the 'competent authority.Finally, the referring court asked, in essence, whether the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows for the designation of an authority other than that responsible for assessing impact of a plan or project on a special conservation area to verify the study of the impact on that area which must be attached to the final plan or project.
3) La directive 92/43 doit être interprétée en ce sens qu'elle ne s'oppose pas à une réglementation nationale prévoyant que l'auteur de la demande réalise une étude des incidences du plan ou du projet en cause sur la zone spéciale de conservation concernée, sur la base de laquelle l'autorité compétente procède Downloaded from Brill.com 11/01/2023 08:37:54PM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/On the Allocation of Allowances Free of Change under the ets Directive Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2020 in Case C-189/19 -Spenner GmbH & Co. kg L'article 3, paragraphe 2, sous b), du règlement n° 1013/2006, tel que modifié par le règlement 2015/2002, doit être interprété en ce sens qu'il s'applique à un tel mélange de déchets pour autant, d'une part, que ce mélange ne contient Downloaded from Brill.com 11/01/2023 08:37:54PM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Case Law Report journal for european environmental & planning the Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Certain Projects Affecting the Quality of a Body of Groundwater, the Right of Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 May 2020 in Case C-535/18 -Land Nordrhein-Westfalen 5.1 Subject Matter This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6 and Article 11(1)(b) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of environmental impact of certain public and private projects, and of Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water.
Downloaded from Brill.com 11/01/2023 08:37:54PM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/journal for european environmental & planning law 17 (2020) 443-460 mique d'une masse d'eau souterraine en raison d'un projet, d'une part, le dépassement d'au moins l'une des normes de qualité ou des valeurs seuils, au sens de l'article 3, paragraphe 1, de la directive 2006/118/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 12 décembre 2006, sur la protection des eaux souterraines contre la pollution et la détérioration, et, d'autre part, une augmentation prévisible de la concentration d'un polluant lorsque le seuil fixé pour Downloaded from Brill.com 11/01/2023 08:37:54PM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/journal for european environmental & planning law 17 (2020) 443-460 celui-ci est d'ores et déjà dépassé.Les valeurs mesurées à chaque point de surveillance doivent être prises en compte individuellement.4) L'article 1er, premier alinéa, sous b), et second alinéa, premier tiret, ainsi que l'article 4, paragraphe 1, sous b), de la directive 2000/60, lus à la lumière de l'article 19 tue et de l'article 288 tfue, doivent être interprétés en ce sens que les membres du public concerné par un projet doivent pouvoir faire valoir, devant les juridictions nationales compétentes, la violation des obligations de prévenir la détérioration des masses d'eau et d'améliorer leur état, si cette violation les concerne directement.6 On Restrictions to Wind Generators Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 in Case C-727/17 -Syndyk Masy Upadłości eco-wind Construction S.A. w upadłości, formerly ecowind Construction S.A. request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(1)(f) of Directive 2015/1535/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, of Article 15(2)(a) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market, and of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources.The request has been made in proceedings between Syndyk Masy Upadłości eco-wind Construction S.A. w upadłości, formerly eco-wind Construction S.A. ('eco-wind'), and Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze w Kielcach (Independent Appeal Board of Kielce, Poland) concerning a decision by the latter refusing to give its consent to the creation of a wind farm within the territory of the municipality of Opatów (Poland).

8
On the Meaning of Plans and Programmes and their Executability Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 June 2020 in Case C-24/19 -A and Others Downloaded from Brill.com 11/01/2023 08:37:54PM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/journal for european environmental & planning law 17 (2020) 443-460

10
On the Concepts of ´normal management of sites´ and ´occupation activity´ under the Environmental Liability Directive Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2020 in Case C-297/19 -Naturschutzbund Deutschland -Landesverband Schleswig-Holstein eV 10.1 Subject Matter This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2(7) of and the second indent of the third paragraph of Annex I to Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (Environmental Liability Directive).The request has been made in proceedings between Naturschutzbund Deutschland-Landesverband Schleswig-Holstein eV ('Naturschutzbund Deutschland') and Kreis Nordfriesland Downloaded from Brill.com 11/01/2023 08:37:54PM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/journal for european environmental & planning law 17 (2020) 443-460 11 On the Protection of the Part of the Natura 2000 Network nearby Rome Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 in Case C-411/19 -wwf Italia Onlus and Others Downloaded from Brill.com 11/01/2023 08:37:54PM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/