- 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-166/22, Hellfire Massy Residents Association: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Hellfire Massy Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Article 12 — System of strict protection for certain animal species — Article 16 — Derogation — Procedure for granting such a derogation — Right of public participation)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CA0166
62022CA0166
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
21.8.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 296/9
(Case C-166/22, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) Hellfire Massy Residents Association)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 12 - System of strict protection for certain animal species - Article 16 - Derogation - Procedure for granting such a derogation - Right of public participation)
(2023/C 296/09)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Hellfire Massy Residents Association
Respondents: An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, Attorney General
Other parties: South Dublin County Council, An Taisce — The National Trust for Ireland, Save Our Bride Otters
Operative part of the judgment
Articles 12 and 16 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 a piece of national legislation intended to transpose those provisions into national law cannot be regarded as contrary to that directive on the ground that that piece of national legislation does not provide for (i) a development consent procedure which involves a decision by a competent authority determining whether it is necessary to apply for a derogation under Article 16 of the abovementioned directive because of matters identified following the grant of development consent to a project and/or whether surveys are required to that end or (ii) public participation in that derogation procedure.
Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.