interaction between the EIA and the Habitas Directive Comments to the solution Workshop in Trier 17 19 March 2014 1 Question EIA Annex I 2 a and 24 to the Directive if 300 or more MW ID: 512038
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Case Study on" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Case Study on interaction between the EIA and the Habitas Directive Comments to the solution
Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014
1Slide2
Question
EIA Annex I 2. (a) and 24. to the Directive (if 300 or more MW) or Annex II 3. (a) b) FFH See: EU Commission’s guidance “MANAGING NATURA 2000 SITES The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC”
Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014
2Slide3
Page 31 “As regards geographical scope, the provisions of Article 6(3) are not restricted to plans and projects which exclusively occur in or cover a protected site; they also target developments situated outside the site but likely to have a significant effect on it.” Question Principally national law applies, butInterpretation consistent with the DirectiveIn case of conflict: Eventually direct effect of the DirectiveWorkshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014 3Slide4
Question
“Adversely effect” , yesAbsence of alternative solutions, yes (extension!)“Imperative reasons of overriding public interest” ? EU Commission’s guidance, page 43: „Thus, projects that lie entirely in the interest of companies or individuals would not be considered to be covered.”Security of
energy supply = public
interest
4.
Question
A condition to the permit is better than refusal.
Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014
4Slide5
Question
Procedural autonomy of the Member States (MS)6. Question Procedural autonomy of the MS. Such a consequence seems not to be requested by EU law.Question Transboundary effect: See Article 7 EIA Directive Insufficient EIA:Case C-72/12, Altrip, 7 November 2013Challenge of a irregularly carried out EIA cannot be excluded
Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014
5Slide6
Condition of causality permissible
But: Burden of proof (of a casual link) must not fall on the applicant8. Question The NGO has no damage9. Question - Judicial restraint? - Procedural autonomy of the MS? - Problematic! Question The answer depends on the solution according to the national law
Workshop in Trier, 17 – 19 March 2014
6