21.3.2009

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/27

(Case C-24/09)

(2009/C 69/50)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening

Defendant: AB Fortum Värme samägt med Stockholms stad

Questions referred

1.Does the provision in Article 10a of Directive 85/337 — that under certain circumstances the public concerned is to have access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of a decision — imply that there is also a requirement that the public concerned is to be entitled to challenge a decision of a court in planning consent proceedings in a case where the public concerned has had the opportunity of participating in the court's examination of the question of planning consent and of submitting its views to that court?

2.If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: Are Articles 1(2), 6(4) and 10a of Directive 85/337 to be interpreted as meaning that different national requirements can be laid down with regard to the public concerned referred to in Articles 6(4), on the one hand, and 10a, on the other, with the result that a locally established environmental protection association which has a right to participate in the decision-making procedures referred to in Article 6(4) in respect of projects which may have significant effects on the environment in the area where the association is active does not — since it has fewer members than the minimum number laid down in national law — have a right of appeal such as is referred to in Article 10a of Directive 85/337?

3.Does the provision in Article 15a of Directive 96/61 — that under certain circumstances the public concerned is to have access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of a decision — imply that there is a requirement that the public concerned is to be entitled to challenge a decision of a court in planning consent proceedings in a case where the public concerned has had the opportunity of participating in the court's examination of the question of planning consent and of submitting its views to that court?

4.If the answer to Question 3 is affirmative: Are Articles 2(14) and 15a of Directive 96/61 to be interpreted as meaning that national requirements can be laid down with regard to the right to judicial review, with the result that a locally established environmental protection association which has a right to participate in the decision-making procedures in respect of projects which may have significant effects on the environment in the area where the association is active does not — since it has fewer members than the minimum number laid down in national law — have a right of appeal such as is referred to in Article 15a of Directive 96/61?

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26).