The High Court has stayed proceedings brought by Friends of the Irish Environment Limited and Tony Lowes over fees for public submissions on planning applications accompanied by environmental impact statements. The stay will remain in place pending resolution of matters raised by the European Commission in its process concerning Ireland’s compliance with the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.
The plaintiffs seek declarations that section 33(2)(c) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and related regulations are invalid under EU law insofar as they require fees for such submissions. They also seek a declaration that members of the public may make submissions on environmental impact statements without paying a fee.
The State defendants applied for a stay, arguing that the Commission’s process concerned substantially the same issue and could lead to infringement proceedings before the Court of Justice. The Commission had issued a reasoned opinion in January 2003. The State had been advised in January 2005 that the Commission intended to bring proceedings, but the judgment records that Ireland had not been formally notified that proceedings had been instituted.
The plaintiffs opposed the application as premature. They argued that the Commission had discretion over whether to bring proceedings, that any EU process would not remove the High Court’s jurisdiction, and that they could seek a separate reference to the Court of Justice. The judge noted that no such reference was pleaded at that stage and was not satisfied it would achieve a different or more expedient result.
Justice Murphy said the plaintiffs’ requested declarations were substantially the same as the relief being pursued by the Commission. He did not consider the merits of the claim or rule on whether the fees were compatible with EU law. He also noted that there had been no pleadings since the plenary summons and statement of claim were issued in January 2004.
Relying on an earlier patent case concerning parallel proceedings, the judge granted the State’s application. The stay is pending resolution of the matters raised by the Commission; the judgment does not determine the plaintiffs’ underlying challenge.