- 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-434/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 30 June 2022 — AS Latvijas valsts meži v Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde, Vides pārraudzības valsts birojs, intervening party: Valsts meža dienests
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0434
62022CN0434
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
19.9.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 359/44
(Case C-434/22)
(2022/C 359/53)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: AS Latvijas valsts meži
Defendants: Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde, Vides pārraudzības valsts birojs
Questions referred
1.Does the concept of ‘project’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) 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 (1) also include activities undertaken in a forest area to ensure maintenance of the area’s forest fire protection infrastructure installations in accordance with the fire protection requirements established in the applicable legislation?
2.If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must the activities undertaken in a forest area to ensure maintenance of the area’s forest fire protection infrastructure installations in accordance with the fire protection requirements established in the applicable legislation be deemed, for the purposes of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, (2) to constitute a project which is directly connected with or necessary to that management, meaning that an assessment procedure for special areas of conservation of European importance (Natura 2000) is not required for the activities in question?
3.If the answer to the second question is in the negative, does Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora also require an assessment to be carried out for plans and projects (activities) which are not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the special area of conservation but which are likely to have a significant effect on conservation areas of European importance (Natura 2000), but which are nevertheless undertaken in accordance with national legislation in order to satisfy forest fire protection and firefighting requirements?
4.If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, is it possible to continue and complete the activity in question before carrying out an assessment procedure for special areas of conservation of European importance (Natura 2000) ex post facto?
5.If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, in order to avoid a possibly significant impact, are the competent authorities under a duty to require the damage to be made good and to adopt measures if the significance of the impact was not assessed during the assessment procedure for special areas of conservation of European importance (Natura 2000)?
(1) OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7, Special edition in Latvian: Chapter 15 Volume 002 P. 102
* * *
Language of the case: Latvian