Bijlage zienswijze 11 InterpretationEIA-I-II T reduce uncertainty interpretation-scope geelgehigh

Annex II (6)

Treatment of intermediate products and production of chemicals;

According to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals, ‘intermediate’ means a substance that is manufactured for and consumed in or used for chemical processing in order to be transformed into another substance (hereinafter referred to as ‘synthesis’). Taking into account the broad scope of the EIA Directive, ‘treatment’ should be understood to cover a wide range of processes. (b) Production of pesticides and pharmaceutical products, paint and varnishes, elastomers and peroxides; The wording of Annex II (6) makes it clear that it covers all of the chemical industry not specified in Annex I (6) (i.e. all chemical plants not considered ‘integrated’). Besides the production of traded products (such as basic chemicals, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, paints and varnishes), the treatment of intermediates69 should also be considered for an environmental impact assessment. Given that projects under Annex II (6) (b) address (final) products not necessarily produced by chemical conversion processes, the EIA Directive scope covers the chemical industry in a wide sense. Therefore, plants that solely formulate chemical products or which produce other final (not chemical) products (i.e. elastomers such as tyres, conveyor belts, rubber gloves) from chemical precursors may also be covered.

(c) Storage facilities for petroleum, petrochemical and chemical products In one Member State, storage facilities (warehouses and storage grounds) for petroleum, petrochemical and chemical products, with a capacity of more than 5 000 tonnes but less than 200 000 tonnes, are subject to a screening.

69

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).

47

Annex II (7) Food industry Annex II (7)

It should be noted that projects listed under this heading in Annex II of the EIA Directive may generally result in products intended for consumption by both humans and animals (e.g. animal feed). (a)

Manufacture of vegetable and animal oils and fats;

(b)

Packing and canning of animal and vegetable products;

(c)

Manufacture of dairy products;

(d)

Brewing and malting;

(e)

Confectionery and syrup manufacture;

(f)

Installations for the slaughter of animals;

(g)

Industrial starch manufacturing installations;

(h)

Fish-meal and fish-oil factories;

(i)

Sugar factories.

Annex II (8) Textile, leather, wood and paper industries (a) Industrial plants for the production of paper and board (projects not included in Annex I); (b) Plants for the pre-treatment (operations such as washing, bleaching, mercerisation) or dyeing of fibres or textiles; (c)

Plants for the tanning of hides and skins;

(d)

Cellulose-processing and production installations.

Annex II (9) Rubber Industry Manufacture and treatment of elastomer-based products Annex II (10) Infrastructure projects (a)

Industrial estate development projects

Member States tend to have different interpretations of this project category. However, these interpretations have to be in line with the objective of the EIA Directive, in particular with its wide scope and broad purpose.

48

Annex II (10)(a)

The Commission report in 200370 notes that Member States have not explicitly identified specific types of projects covered by this project category. Many Member States have preferred to specify the project size (e.g. an area measured in hectares) to be used for industrial estate development projects. Furthermore, information received from Member States shows that there is no real consensus among Member States on the use of the terms ‘industrial’ and ‘estate’. For example, a few Member States use the term ‘industrial or business parks’ when defining this project category. These ‘parks’ can be considered to have the following characteristics: they are areas developed by a developer that have the required infrastructure for joint industrial or business utilisation by several companies; are characterised by spatial proximity; and form an operational or functional unit. Therefore, providing a comprehensive list of project types that might be relevant under this particular heading is almost impossible. In general, this category could include any type of project that is intended for high-tech companies, storage, warehousing, trading, and distribution/transport companies. However, summarising information provided by some Member States71, some common characteristics emerge, and these could be used for describing this project category.

An industrial estate development project could be understood as specific area (land), which is zoned (developed) for industrial or for joint industrial and business purposes and where the necessary infrastructure is provided. The term ‘infrastructure’ is widely interpreted and includes, for example, roads, power, and other utility services, provided to facilitate the growth of industries. It is common practice for industrial estate development projects to be intended for simultaneous use by several companies that are in close proximity. These companies may be provided with infrastructure for joint industrial or business utilisation. Industrial estate development projects constitute an area where potential overlaps between the EIA and SEA Directives, as referred to in section 1.4, can occur more frequently than in other areas. These projects are included in Annex II(10)(a) of the EIA Directive but plans or programmes for industrial estates will come under the SEA Directive if they have the criteria contained in the latter. For example, in one national legal system, industrial estates would usually be considered as part of the development plan for an area and would be subject to a separate strategic environment assessment. (b) Urban development projects, including the construction of shopping centres and car parks.

70

COM(2003) 334 final, 23.06.2003. Two Member States provided further clarification of the description of this project category in their national environmental impact assessment systems. 71

49

The EIA Directive provides two examples of what could be considered to fall within this category, i.e. shopping centres and car parks, but these do not constitute an exhaustive list of the activities covered. Information on existing practices in Member States shows that interpretations differ regarding the scope of this project category, although Member States have in most cases interpreted this category in a broad sense72. Annex II (10)(b)

Housing developments, in particular, are frequently included in the ‘urban development projects’ category, as are sports stadiums. In some Member States, this category also includes leisure centres and multiplex cinemas. In one Member State, this project category also includes projects for cemeteries, human crematoriums, the extension of theme and amusement parks, and overhead roadways. Another example is that urban development projects can include the construction of bus or trolleybus parks, car parks or garage complexes, sports stadiums or wellness centres (with a construction area exceeding 0.5 ha). Finally, one Member State introduced the following thresholds above which an environmental impact assessment is to be conducted: shopping centres and supermarkets with a surface greater than 2 500 m2; independent parking places with a capacity of more than 300 vehicles; football pitches and stadiums with a capacity greater than 2 000 seats; cinema complexes with more than six screens; schools for higher education with a capacity greater than 500 students; university campuses; and churches and other places for religious worship. Urban development projects in sensitive areas have to be carefully assessed for their environmental impact. In interpreting the scope of Annex II (10)(b), the ‘wide scope and broad purpose’ of the EIA Directive73 should be borne in mind.

The ruling of the Court in Case C-332/04, Commission v Spain, deals with the selection criteria of Annex III projects based on an example of this project category. The case dealt with a recreational centre (cinema complex) to be constructed in an urban area. The Court concluded that national legislation that excludes all urban development projects in urban areas from this project category amounts to incorrect transposition of Annex II 10 (b) project category. This is because, given the size, nature and location of the recreational centre (cinema complex), it could not have been ruled out from the outset that it is not likely to have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, in relation to project location, an urban development project should be seen as a project that is urban in nature regardless of its location.74 To this end, the interpretation of this project category could take account of, inter alia, the following:

72

COM(2003) 334 final. Stated in case C-72/95, Kraaijeveld and others, and consistently stressed in subsequent Court rulings. 74 COM(2003) 334 final. 73

50

(i) Projects with similar characteristics to car parks and shopping centres could be considered to fall under Annex II (10)(b). This could be the case, for example, of bus garages or train depots, which are not explicitly mentioned in the EIA Directive, but have similar characteristics to car parks. (ii) Construction projects such as housing developments, hospitals, universities, sports stadiums, cinemas, theatres, concert halls and other cultural centres could also be assumed to fall within this category. The underlying principle is that all these project categories are of an urban nature and that they may cause similar types of environmental impact.75

Annex II (10)(b)

(iii) Projects to which the terms ‘urban’ and ‘infrastructure’ can relate, such as the construction of sewerage and water supply networks, could also be included in this category. Projects for integrated urban transport schemes (e.g. parallel works at different locations to upgrade bus lanes, tramlines, bus, tram and/or metro stops), could also fall under this project category. Member States may decide in their national environmental impact assessment systems that some of the above-mentioned projects (for example, sports stadiums or water supply networks,76 drinking water treatment plants and pipes for carrying treated drinking water77) fall within other Annex II project categories. Compliance with the Directive will be ensured, irrespective of which Annex II category is considered applicable, provided that those projects which give rise to significant environmental effects do not escape from the scope of application of the Directive. (c) Construction of railways and intermodal transhipment facilities, and of intermodal terminals (projects not included in Annex I); (d)

Construction of airfields (projects not included in Annex I)

This project category could be interpreted as including heliports. (e) Construction of roads, harbours, and port installations, including fishing harbours (projects not included in Annex I) In Case C-142/07, Ecologistas en Acción-CODA, the Court held that an exception for the applicability of the EIA Directive with regard to urban roads ‘cannot be accepted’. The concept of ‘road’ in the EIA Directive does not make any distinction with regard 75

Including noise and traffic-related disruption during the construction phase, traffic generation during the operational phase, land-take, impairment of soil function due to sealing and visual impact. 76 In at least one Member State, sewerage and water supply networks are considered to fall within Annex II(10)(j) ‘Installations of long-distance aqueducts’. 77 They might be qualified as Annex II (10)(b) projects although in some cases it may be that the treatment works should instead be considered as an integral part of another category of project (e.g. reservoirs, or deep drilling for water supplies).

51

to its applicability as to whether a road is a private or a public one. It would be incompatible with its wide scope to exclude private roads. In any event, the requirements of the EIA Directive must be applied to private roads too (Case C427/07, Commission v. Ireland, paragraph 28). (f) Inland waterway construction not included in Annex I, canalisation and flood relief works.

Annex II (10)(f)

In Case C-72/95, Kraaijeveld and others, the Court interpreted this project category. In its judgment, it stated that ‘canalisation and flood relief works’ must be interpreted as including works for retaining water and preventing floods, and consequently dyke work along navigable waterways. The expression ‘canalisation and flood relief works’ is also to be interpreted as including not only the construction of a new dyke, but also the modification of an existing dyke, involving its relocation, reinforcement or widening, and replacement of a dyke by constructing a new dyke in situ, whether or not the new dyke is stronger or wider than the old one, or a combination of such works. The Court’s interpretation that modifications to ‘canalisation and flood relief works’ also fall under this project category has to be read in the context of the time of the judgment. At that time, the EIA Directive did not contain any specific provision in relation to modifications to projects listed in Annex II that would correspond to today’s Annex II 13 (a) project category (See Annex II (13)(a)).

(g) Dams and other installations designed to hold water or store it on a long-term basis (projects not included in Annex I); (h) Tramways, elevated and underground railways, suspended lines or similar lines of a particular type, used exclusively or mainly for passenger transport; There are questions on how to interpret ‘suspended lines or similar lines of a particular type’ and whether trolleybuses fall under this category of projects.

Annex II (10)(h)

Clearly, Annex II 10 (h) attempts to cover means of transport used exclusively or mainly for passenger transport and which need some kind of infrastructure work to be done in order for them to operate on a fixed line, or, in the case of trolleybuses, an overhead line. Although trolleybuses are not explicitly listed, it is in the spirit of the Directive to consider overhead lines for trolleybuses as ‘similar lines of a particular type’ and to include trolleybus infrastructure projects under Annex II 10 (h) project category. A similar approach could be followed for urban cable cars and funiculars. (i) Oil and gas pipeline installations and pipelines for the transport of CO2 streams for the purposes of geological storage (projects not included in Annex I); 52

(j)

Installations of long-distance aqueducts

Member States have different interpretations of ‘long-distance’, which may also depend on the type of aqueduct. Some Member States do case-by-case assessment instead of using thresholds.

Annex II (10)(j)

In other Member States, long-distance is considered in quantitative terms, for instance either more than 2 km, or above 20 km. There might be a case where the length is jointly assessed with the diameter of the pipeline in order to determine the significance of the environmental effect. In any case, when setting thresholds or assessing the effects of long-distance aqueduct projects, the relevant criteria set out in Annex III to the Directive should be taken into account. The screening process should be based not only on the length of projects, but it should also take into consideration all the relevant criteria listed in Annex III, e.g. location criteria. (k) Coastal work to combat erosion and maritime works capable of altering the coast through the construction, for example, of dykes, moles, jetties and other sea defence works, excluding the maintenance and reconstruction of such works; (l) Groundwater abstraction and artificial groundwater recharge schemes not included in Annex I. For the interpretation of the term ‘groundwater’, please refer to the explanation given for project category under Annex I (11) above.

Annex II (10)(l)

In Case C-263/08, Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening and taking note that the scope of the Directive is wide and its purpose very broad, the Court considered the above project category. It held that it must be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of point 10 (l) of Annex II cover all groundwater abstraction and artificial groundwater recharge schemes not included in Annex I to that Directive, irrespective of their purpose. This means that they also cover schemes which do not involve the subsequent use of that groundwater (paragraph 30). The Court concluded that ‘[a project] such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning abstraction of water leaking into a tunnel which houses electric cables and its recharging into the ground or rock in order to compensate for any reduction in the amount of groundwater, and the construction and maintenance of facilities for the abstraction and recharge, are covered by point 10(l) in Annex II to Directive 85/337, irrespective of the ultimate destination of the groundwater and, in particular, of whether or not it is put to a subsequent use’ (paragraph 31). (m) Works for the transfer of water resources between river basins not included in Annex I.

53

Annex II (10)(m)

For the interpretation of the term ‘river basin’, please refer to project category Annex I (12) of this document. Activities related to production of artificial snow or ice involving the extraction and transfer of water could be subject to screening, before determining whether they fall under Annex II 10(l) or (m). This is without prejudice to Annex II(12) (a) which covers ski run projects. Annex II (11) Other projects (a)

Annex II (11)(a)

Permanent racing and test tracks for motorised vehicles;

Assessment of projects under this category can depend on the length of a racing track or its location. Accordingly, in one Member State, an environmental impact assessment is mandatory for permanent racing and test tracks for motorised vehicles if the tracks have a length of 2 km or more, while screening will be conducted in the case of permanent racing and test tracks for motorised vehicles when located within protected areas, such as Natura 2000, national parks or UNESCO heritage sites. (b) Installations for the disposal of waste (projects not included in Annex I) For the definition of ‘waste’, please refer to the explanation given for the project category under Annex I (9) above. For ‘disposal of waste’, please refer to the explanation given for project category under Annex I (10) above. Landfill sites are included in this project category, as the Court held in its judgment in Case C-121/11 Pro Braine and Others.

Annex II (11)(b)

The closure or rehabilitation of landfills is likely to have significant effects on the environment (for example, through the construction of physical installations, and the treatment of leachates and/or landfill gases e.g. methane). These impacts should normally be included in the environmental impact assessment report prepared as part of the original authorisation of the landfill. If that was not the case, then either a screening or a full assessment procedure should be carried out before the closure or rehabilitation takes place. These procedures could be part of, or combined with, the on-site inspection and reporting required under Article 13 of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste. (c)

Wastewater treatment plants (projects not included in Annex I);

(d)

Sludge-deposition sites;

The treatment and disposal of sludge could be interpreted as being covered by this project category. 54

(e)

Storage of scrap iron, including scrap vehicles;

(f)

Test benches for engines, turbines or reactors;

(g)

Installations for the manufacture of artificial mineral fibres;

(h) Installations for the recovery or destruction of explosive substances; (i)

Knackers’ yards.

Annex II (12) Tourism and leisure (a)

Ski runs, ski lifts and cable cars and associated developments;

The thresholds for this project category are mainly based on the size of the project (e.g. project surface, length of ski runs or the hourly capacity of ski lifts and cable cars). Annex II (12)(a)

For instance, in one Member State, an environmental impact assessment is carried out for ski runs longer than 1.5 km, or which cover an area greater than 5 acres (approximately 2 hectares). The assessment is carried out for mechanical lifts, excluding ski lifts and monocables of permanent connection with a slant height of no more than 500 m, with a maximum hourly capacity greater than 1800 passengers. In another Member State, ski runs and snowmaking installations are subject to an environmental impact assessment if the project covers a greenfield area of 2 hectares or more. Outside greenfield area, these are subject to an assessment if the project area is 4 hectares or more. Below these thresholds, ski runs and snowmaking installation projects are subject to case-by-case examination. Ski lifts are subject to an assessment if they can transport more than 1 500 passengers per hour. Below this threshold, a case-by-case examination is carried out. Thresholds are lower in another Member State where ski runs, ski lifts, cable cars and associated equipment, are subject to an environmental impact assessment if they cover an area of more than 1 hectare in the built-up vicinity, or over 0.5 hectares outside the built-up zones. For projects in protected areas, the assessment is compulsory, notwithstanding the thresholds.

In addition, another Member State introduced height as an alternative criterion. Consequently, the assessment is carried out where the area of the works exceeds 1 hectare or the height of any building or other structure exceeds 15 metres. (b)

Marinas;

(c) Holiday villages and hotel complexes outside urban areas and associated developments; (d)

Permanent campsites and caravan sites; 55

(e)

Theme parks.

The project category ‘theme parks’ is among those for which information is difficult to find. Most Member States have transposed this project category as defined in the EIA Directive without specifying the project further (e.g. project size and purpose). As noted already, the wording of the EIA Directive indicates that its scope is wide and its purpose very broad.78 Consequently, parks differing in purpose, size, location, extent of soil sealing and expected number of visitors could be considered to fall within this project category. When deciding on whether a particular project falls under Annex II (12)(e), it is recommended to consider the following: (i) The theme or objective of the park is not defined by the EIA Directive. Parks falling within this project category could be developed, for example, for recreational, educational or informative purposes. However, it should be noted that the project category ‘theme park’ is listed in Annex II (12) under the heading ‘Tourism and leisure’. For instance, a park that has a specific theme or attraction or several attractions, like an amusement park, should be considered a theme park. Areas planned for a leisure attraction based on or related to a particular subject should also be covered by this project category. For example, water parks and zoos79 should be considered to fall under this project category.

Annex II (12)(e)

(ii) Sports stadiums would in principle be covered by Annex II(10)(b) ‘urban development projects’. However, certain Member States can decide in their national environmental impact assessment systems that sports stadiums fall within the ‘theme parks’ category. Compliance with the Directive will be ensured, irrespective of which Annex II category is considered applicable, provided that such projects do not escape from the scope of application of the Directive. (iii)

Annex II (12)(e) could be considered to include golf courses.

In some Member States, the environmental impact assessment is always required for golf course projects, while in others an assessment is required above specific thresholds based on area covered by the project or the number of holes (e.g. 10 ha, 45 ha in another Member State, or 18 holes). Another example is a requirement for screening for golf courses with 9 holes or more. 78

Stated in case C-72/95, Kraaijeveld and others, and in case C-227/01, Commission v Spain. Article 2 of the Zoos Directive (Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos, OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p. 24) defines ‘zoos’ as ‘all permanent establishments where animals of wild species are kept for exhibition to the public for 7 or more days a year, with the exception of circuses, pet shops and establishments which Member States exempt from the requirements of this Directive on the grounds that they do not exhibit a significant number of animals or species to the public and that the exemption will not jeopardise the objectives of this Directive’. 79

56

Annex II (13) (a) Any change or extension of projects listed in Annex I or Annex II, already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment. Directive 85/337/EEC did not explicitly cover modifications of existing projects, with the exception of ‘Modifications to development projects included in Annex I and projects in Annex I undertaken exclusively or mainly for the development and testing of new methods or products and not used for more than one year’ (Annex II(12)). Directive 97/11/EC amended Directive 85/337/EEC so as to include modifications of existing Annex I and Annex II projects in Annex II(13): ‘any change or extension of projects listed in Annex I or Annex II, already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have adverse effects on the environment’.

Annex II (13)

Directive 2003/35/EC, which amended Directive 85/337/EEC, among others, and came into effect on 25 June 2005, introduced a new Annex I(22)80 category including changes or extensions of projects listed in Annex I where such a change or extension in itself meets the thresholds, if any, set out in Annex I. These project modifications therefore need to undergo an environmental impact assessment according to Article 4(1) of the Directive. Changes or extensions of existing projects not included in Annex I(22) fall within Annex II(13) (See Box 1).

The evolution over time of the wording of the EIA Directive concerning project modifications reflects the case law of the Court on this subject. On a number of occasions, the Court has dealt with the issue of whether a project should be interpreted as a new project or a modification of an existing one, and how the project is then covered by the requirements of Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the Directive. ‘Already authorised’ in the sense of Annex II (13) means projects for which development consent has been given. In Case C-2/07, Abraham and Others, the Court concluded that point 12 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I, to the EIA Directive (in their original version),81 must be regarded as also including works to modify an existing airport. Therefore, works to modify an airport with a runway length of 2 100 metres or more thus comprise not only works to extend the runway, but all works relating to the buildings, installations or equipment of that airport where they may be regarded, in

80

Annex 1(22) became Annex I(24) after the amendment of the EIA Directive by Directive 2009/31/EC.

81

Point 12 of Annex II in Directive 85/337/EEC read: ‘Modifications to development projects included in Annex I and projects in Annex I undertaken exclusively or mainly for the development and testing of new methods or products and not used for more than one year.’ This text partially corresponds to Annex II (13) of the current EIA Directive.

57

particular because of their nature, extent and characteristics, as a modification of the airport itself. That is the case in particular for works aimed at significantly increasing the activity of the airport and air traffic.82 In Case C-72/95, Kraaijeveld and others, the Court found that the expression canalisation and flood-relief works referred to in point 10(e) of Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC (before amendments by Directive 97/11/EC) should be interpreted as including not only construction of a new dyke, but also modification of an existing dyke involving its relocation, reinforcement or widening, and replacement of a dyke by constructing a new dyke in situ, whether or not the new dyke is stronger or wider than the old one, or a combination of such works (paragraph 42). It should be noted that, at the time when the Court delivered its judgment, Annex II (13) was not in the EIA Directive. Therefore, the Court interpreted this modification in the context of the main project category, i.e. Annex II (10) (e).83

Annex II (13)

In the context of Annex II (13), a question may arise on how to interpret rehabilitation works and whether such rehabilitation schemes would fall under this category of projects. Rehabilitation schemes could fall into two categories. The first category comprises those cases in which rehabilitation is no more than renewal of worn or decayed parts. It might be thought of as large-scale maintenance. When the project has been rehabilitated, it is as good as if it was newly built but it is not different from or more extensive than the original project. Subject to two caveats, this type of rehabilitation is not considered to come within the Directive’s scope. (i) The first caveat is that rehabilitation may include the use of new materials to replace the original ones even though the capacity of the network remains unchanged. For example, cement or plastic pipes might be used instead of iron, copper or clay ones. Strictly speaking, this should be considered as a change to the original project. (ii) The second caveat arises if the works needed to carry out the rehabilitation project will themselves be unusually disruptive (in terms of the screening criteria in Annex III). For example, it might be necessary to destroy a protected habitat in order to gain access to buried installations such as pipework.

Where the Habitats Directive is concerned, it would be possible to rely on the Article 6 assessment. Habitats protected under national law might be in a weaker position and here, too, the EIA Directive could be invoked if there is indeed a change to the original project (e.g. different types of pipes).

82

Case C-2/07, Abraham and Others, paragraphs 33, 34, 36, 40, operative part 2. That interpretation is in no way called into question by the fact that the EIA Directive 97/11 has replaced point 12 of Annex II to the EIA Directive 85/337 with a new point 13. 83 Annex II (12) (e) is now Annex II (12) (f).

58

The second category of rehabilitation may include some repair or maintenance (as above) but its main characteristic is that it changes or extends the project in some way. For example, a sewerage system might be made more extensive, or have pumping stations added, or its capacity might be increased. This would amount to a change or extension and so the project would fall within the Directive’s scope and screening would be necessary. That does not mean that a full environmental impact assessment would necessarily be required. This would depend on the individual case and would need to be considered in the light of the Annex III screening criteria. (b) Projects in Annex I, undertaken exclusively or mainly for the development and testing of new methods or products and not used for more than two years.

59

4 Table of cases Court of the European Union Case C-431/92, European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany, ECLI:EU:C:1995:260 Case C-133/94, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:1996:181 Case C-72/95, Kraaijeveld and others, ECLI:EU:C:1996:404 Case C-392/96, Commission v Ireland, ECLI:EU:C:1999:431 Case C-435/97, WWF and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1999:418 Case C-287/98, Linster and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2000:468 Case C-227/01, Commission v Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2004:528 Case C-87/02, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2004:363 Case C-127/02, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging, ECLI:EU:C:2004:482 Case C-201/02, Wells, ECLI:EU:C:2003:502 Case C-290/03, Barker, ECLI:EU:C:2006:286 Case C-508/03, Commission v United Kingdom, ECLI:EU:C:2006:287 Case C-332/04, Commission v Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2006:180 Case C-255/05, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2007:406 Case C-66/06, Commission v Ireland, ECLI:EU:C:2008:637 Case C-2/07, Abraham and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2008:133 Case C-142/07, Ecologistas en Acción-CODA, ECLI:EU:C:2008:445 Case C-427/07, Commission v. Ireland, ECLI:EU:C:2009:30 Case C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann, ECLI:EU:C:2008:771 Case C-473/07 Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières and OABA, ECLI:EU:C:2009:30 Case C-75/08 Mellor, ECLI:EU:C:2009:279 60

Case C-205/08 Alpe Adria Energia, ECLI:EU:C:2009:767 Case C-255/08, Commission v. Netherlands, ECLI:EU:C:2009:630 Case C-263/08, Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening, ECLI:EU:C:2009:631 Case C-50/09, Commission v Ireland, ECLI:EU:C:2011:109 Case C-275/09, Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2011:154 Case C-435/09, Commission v Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:2011:176 Case C-585/10, Møller, ECLI:EU:C:2011:847 Case, C-121/11, Pro Braine and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2012:225 Case C-260-11, Edwards and Pallikaropoulous, [EU:C:2013:221] Case C-420/11, Leth, ECLI:EU:C:2013:166 Case C-244/12, Salzburger Flughafen, ECLI:EU:C:2013:203 Case C-531/13, Kornhuber and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2015:79

61

KH-02-15-353-EN-N ISBN : 978-92-79-48090-4 doi. 10.2779/5854181