EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-645/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2015 — Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., Harald Wilde v Freistaat Bayern

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0645

62015CN0645

December 3, 2015
With Google you find a lot.
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

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/5

(Case C-645/15)

(2016/C 090/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., Harald Wilde

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Questions referred

1.Should Point 7(c) of Annex I to 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 (the ‘EIA Directive’) be interpreted as covering also the widening of existing roads with four or more lanes?

2.If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is Point 7(c) of Annex I to the EIA Directive more specific than Point 7(b) of Annex I to that directive and does it for that reason take priority in application?

3.If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the negative: Does the term ‘express road’ in Point 7(b) of Annex I to the EIA Directive presuppose that the road section in question is a main international traffic artery within the meaning of the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries?

4.If Questions 1, 2 or 3 are answered in the negative: Does the term ‘construction’ in Point 7(b) of Annex I to the EIA Directive apply to road-widening under which the existing route of the road does not undergo any significant alteration?

5.If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative: Does the term ‘construction’ in Point 7(b) of Annex I to the EIA Directive presuppose a minimum length with regard to the road section in question? If so, must this involve a continuous section of road? If so, is the minimum length more than a continuous length of 2,6 kilometres or, where the lengths of multiple separate sections of road are to be added together, more than a total of 4,4 kilometres?

6.If Question 5 is answered in the negative: Does the second reference in Point 7(b) of Annex I to the EIA Directive (construction of express roads) apply to a road-widening measure within a built-up area within the meaning of the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries?

(1) OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia