The High Court has agreed in principle to refer two questions about strategic environmental assessment to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in a case brought by An Taisce over government measures concerning agriculture.
The questions address an alleged duty to choose the most environmentally friendly option and an alleged duty to weigh alternatives comparably. Mr Justice Humphreys said the issues concern interpretation of EU law, the answers are necessary for the High Court to give judgment, and the answers are not sufficiently clear to avoid a reference. He said it was appropriate to refer them.
The State accepted that the question about comparing alternatives was not acte clair, but argued that the first question was. The judge said a 2023 CJEU judgment concerning Site de St Teresa’s Gardens suggested that the relevant directive did not have the effect An Taisce contended for, but did not provide a sufficiently clear answer to rule out a reference.
The ruling is procedural. It does not decide the underlying environmental assessment issues or the case as a whole. The court ordered that the questions be referred in principle under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with the wording to appear in a separate formal reference judgment.
The parties must complete a CJEU contact sheet within seven days. The document management party must prepare a draft list of relevant documents, agree it with the other parties or return to court if they cannot agree, and prepare the electronic files for submission within 28 days. The parties were also asked to keep the referring court informed of relevant later CJEU submissions and events, subject to that court’s rules.
Costs to date were reserved. The matter was listed for mention on 27 January 2025.
The case had already produced four judgments in 2024, addressing pleading and evidential objections, substantive issues apart from strategic environmental assessment, and a formal reference on other questions. The strategic environmental assessment module had been postponed pending a CJEU ruling in a separate case, which did not resolve the issues raised here.