The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by residents and a residents’ association seeking to pause two legal challenges to approvals for a proposed waste incinerator at Ringaskiddy, Co Cork. The challenges will not be stayed pending the outcome of potential European Commission proceedings against Ireland.
The appeals concerned a High Court refusal to adjourn the cases. One challenges An Bord Pleanála’s 2004 grant of planning permission to Indaver NV for the incinerator. The other challenges the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2005 grant of a waste licence for activities at the site. Both cases raise multiple grounds, including allegations that Ireland had failed to properly transpose the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive into domestic law.
The appellants sought an adjournment after learning in October 2007 that the Commission had decided to bring infringement proceedings against Ireland over the Directive’s transposition. They argued that continuing the Irish cases risked a conflict with a future Court of Justice decision. However, no Commission case had been commenced when the Supreme Court considered the appeals.
The Court did not decide whether EU law establishes a principle requiring national proceedings to be stayed in such circumstances, or what the scope of any such principle might be. It considered the appellants’ argument on the assumption that a stay could be required where there was a substantial or material risk of conflicting decisions, and said the applicants had to establish that risk.
The Court found that they had not done so. It lacked the Commission’s Reasoned Opinions and did not know the legal basis on which any future case would be brought. The prospect and timing of proceedings, their likely outcome, and whether the Irish cases would turn on the transposition issue were uncertain. The Court also noted that each challenge included other grounds and might be resolved without deciding that issue.
The Supreme Court said the cases had been under way since 2005 and the parties were ready for trial. An indefinite adjournment could prejudice the respondents and notice parties, while the cases should be determined with reasonable expedition. It also concluded that the interests of justice did not call for an adjournment under the Court’s general discretion under national law.
The Court dismissed the appeals. It did not decide the merits of either challenge to the planning permission or waste licence, or determine whether Ireland had properly transposed the Directive.