The High Court has agreed in principle to refer questions of EU law to the Court of Justice of the European Union in a judicial review concerning a domestic development consent. The formal judgment setting out the reference will be delivered separately.
In a judgment delivered on 31 January 2025, Mr Justice Humphreys said the questions concerned the interpretation of EU law, were not acte clair and were necessary to enable the court to give judgment. He decided that a reference was appropriate and made procedural directions to prepare it.
The underlying dispute concerns the time limit for bringing the judicial review. In an earlier judgment, the court held that, apart from the EU law arguments, the proceedings were one day late and the statutory test for extending time had not been met. The applicants were directed to put the State on notice of their claim that the time-limit framework was contrary to EU law.
The judge said the applicants had accepted the general principle that time runs from the date of a decision, while arguing for limited qualifications. He declined to read a later submission as trying to broaden the case beyond the applicants’ pleaded grounds. He also refused an earlier application by Protect East Meath to join as an amicus curiae, saying the proposed argument that time should run from notification went beyond the applicants’ case.
Friends of the Irish Environment was later added as an amicus without objection. The court directed that the amicus bear its own costs and participate through written submissions unless otherwise ordered.
The order also directs the parties to complete a contact sheet addressing whether natural persons wish to have their names anonymised in the EU proceedings. The document management party must prepare the relevant case papers for the EU court, and the parties are to liaise over forwarding permitted submissions and updates once the matter is formally referred.
All costs to date were reserved. The matter was listed for mention on 10 March 2025 to review arrangements for the reference. The judgment does not itself contain the formal reference or resolve the underlying judicial review.