Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/2843

(Case C-189/25, Virus II)

(C/2025/2843)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Umweltorganisation VIRUS – Verein Projektwerkstatt für Umwelt und Soziales, Umweltschutzorganisation Global 2000, Bürgerinitiative ‘Marchfeld-Groß Enzersdorf’, Bürgerinitiative ‘Rettet die Lobau – Natur statt Beton’, Bürgerinitiative ‘Lebenswertes Neu Essling’, Agrargemeinschaft Mannswörth, C. K. and Others

Defendant and project applicant: Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs-AG (Asfinag)

Interested authorities: Amt der Wiener Landesregierung, Abteilung Wasserrecht MA58; Amt der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung, Gruppe Wirtschaft, Sport und Tourismus, Abteilung Anlagenrecht – WST1

Host municipalities: Stadt Wien, Stadtgemeinde Groß-Enzersdorf, Stadtgemeinde Schwechat

Questions referred

1.Must European Union law, in particular Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC (SEA Directive), be interpreted as meaning that an annex to a provision of national law (schedule), which declares sections of road to be ‘federal roads’ by determining certain geographical points (start, intermediate [way] and end points), that definition establishing, in a binding manner, the entitlement to submit an application for determination of the line of the road within the framework of a specific project to be submitted for consent in the future and the competence of the authority issuing consent, sets a ‘framework for future development consent’ of projects listed in Annexes I and II to Directive 2011/92/EU (EIA Directive), even if that provision of law lays down specific conditions for consent for the project, including in particular road safety, functional purpose or environmental impact, but those conditions make no further reference to the determination of the course of the road by geographical points?

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

2.Must Article 13(3) of the SEA Directive be interpreted as meaning that a first formal preparatory act within the meaning of that provision has occurred where documents, which are to be drawn up under relevant specific law applicable in the Member State prior to an amendment of a plan, were in preparation and, during their preparation, were also repeatedly presented to the local authorities, host municipalities and authorities issuing consent involved and discussed by a committee of experts?

3.Must Article 3(2)(a) of the SEA Directive be interpreted as meaning that, where a specific project is consented in several stages under the EIA Directive, a plan whose criteria and detailed rules directly form the basis only for the first consent also sets a framework for all further development consents necessary for the implementation of the project?

—

Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

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 (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1).

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2843/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—