‘Required’ not compulsory & ‘modifying’ includes repealing under SEA Directive
Case C-567/10, Inter-Environnement Bruxelles and Others, 22 March 2012
This case concerned the interpretation of the SEA Directive 2001/42/EC. An amendment to the Belgian regional planning act was contested by NGO’s that addressed the Belgian constitutional court claiming that under the amendment, an environmental impact assessment for the total or partial repeal of a land use plan is no longer required, contrary to the requirements of the Directive 2001/42/EC. Following the approach proposed by Advocate-General Kokott in her Opinion (discussed in EEL News Service 2012/01), the Court noted that Directive 2001/42 refers only expressly to modifying measures, but found that its object and purpose support a broader interpretation that in principle includes total or partial repealing measures. The ECJ came to this conclusion after considering that the partial or total repeal of a plan or programme can have significant effects on the environment, since it may involve a modification of the planning envisaged in the territories concerned. It did add one exception. Repealing a measure might not require an SEA if it falls within a hierarchy of town and country planning measures, and those measures lay down sufficiently precise rules governing land use, they have themselves been the subject of an assessment of their environmental effects, and it may reasonably be considered that the interests which Directive 2001/42 is designed to protect have been taken into account sufficiently within that framework.
As for a question regarding the interpretation of the provision on plans and programmes ‘required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions’ (Article 2(a) of the Directive, emphasis added), the ECJ explained that this covers not only plans and programmes the adoption of which is compulsory, but also those ´whose adoption is regulated by national legislative or regulatory provisions, which determine the competent authorities for adopting them and the procedure for preparing them.”
The ECJ thus interpreted the provisions of the SEA Directive in a manner that contributes to reaching the goal of this instrument, namely ensuring that a high level of protection of the environment is achieved.
Case law
About: European Environmental Law Network
Welcome to the European Environmental Law network. Here you can find full text cases and legislation in our database. Dossiers offer a more in depth view on specific issues. ‘National pages´ provide an overview of national developments and issues and the EEL News Service informs you of updates.
Court of Justice
- Lack of EIA and pecuniary damage
- Austrian EIA legislation breaks EU rules
- Inadmissibility of action against seal products ban
- Access to urban planning decisions
- Precautionary aspects of Habitats Directive revisited
- Ireland fined for non-compliance with EIA judgment
- Ireland fined for non-compliance with waste judgment
- Spain/UK territorial dispute over Gibraltar
- Costs of judicial proceedings in environmental matters
- Portugal failed to fulfil its pollution control obligations for certain years
- Diversion of river allowed if numerous conditions are met
- Products not killing algae still are biocides
- Exemptions to access to information for public bodies limited
- Conditions for exception to EIA Directive and Aarhus Convention
- ‘Required’ not compulsory & ‘modifying’ includes repealing under SEA Directive
- EU Court rules on confidentiality in waste shipment obligation
- Poland and Estonia win appeal on Commission’s NAP decisions
- Court rules on fair-trade tea and coffee under public procurement directive
- ECJ confirms direct effect of Article 10 of the Landfill of Waste Directive
- Opinion on continuation of wrongly adopted Plans and Programs
- Annulment of Plans and Programs subject to EIA
- ECJ expresses conformity of EU ETS with international law
- Austrian lorry prohibition disproportionate with EU law
- Spain held to be in breach of EIA and Habitats Directives
- Shipping waste to third countries both prohibited and allowed for
- Cumulative Interests weighed in access to environmental information
- Use of human embryos for purposes of scientific research is not patentable
- Conditions for provisional prohibitions of GM Maize
- EIA Directive not easily sidestepped by legislative acts
- European Emission Trading Scheme for Aviation in line with International Law (AG Opinion)
- Foodstuff with involuntary GMO traces subject to safety assessment
- Netherlands Emission Trading Scheme constitutes State Aid
- Recent Cases of the ECJ
- Environmental NGOs to be allowed access to courts
- Hof van Justitie EU: vergunningen Nederlandse kolencentrales niet in gevaar (Dutch)
- European Court of Justice: permits for Dutch coal-fired power stations not at risk





