- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-596/22, Kreis Gütersloh: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden — Germany) — Mr J. O. v Kreis Gütersloh (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment or a case-by-case examination — Cumulative effects of projects — Construction of a building for the rearing of broilers adjacent to similar buildings)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CB0596
62022CB0596
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
26.6.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 223/8
(Case C-596/22, (1) Kreis Gütersloh)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Environment - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment or a case-by-case examination - Cumulative effects of projects - Construction of a building for the rearing of broilers adjacent to similar buildings)
(2023/C 223/10)
Language of the case: Germany
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Mr J. O.
Defendant: Kreis Gütersloh
Intervener: W. D.
Operative part of the order
1.Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014, read in conjunction with point 1(b) and point 3(g) of Annex III to Directive 2011/92, as amended, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the obligation to examine a project’s potential impact jointly with other projects is limited to situations in which the planned installation and those other projects are linked by joint facilities.
2.Directive 2011/92, as amended by Directive 2014/52, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides only for a case-by-case examination within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92, as amended, with regard to a project which, individually, falls below the threshold provided for in point 17(a) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92, as amended, but meets that threshold where it is considered jointly with other projects. In the context of that case-by-case examination, the fact that such a project meets that threshold where it is taken together with other projects may nevertheless be an indication that that project is likely to have significant effects on the environment, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92, as amended.
* Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ C 463, 5.12.2022.