Following an administrative appeal body for environmental protection of second instance upheld the decision after publishing the planning decision.
Interested parties then entered the Slovak courts and Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic) asks the Court to clarify the scope of the public's right to participate in the procedures for authorizing projects with significant impact on environment.
In its judgment delivered today, the Court first recalls that national procedural rule does not undermine the ability of national courts to the Court for a preliminary ruling when they have doubts about the interpretation of European Union law. The national court therefore retains this right - even a national rule requires it to follow the legal position of the Slovak Constitutional Court - and it will remove the opinions expressed by that court if they prove contrary to the law of Union.
As Supreme Court, Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky is still required to apply to the Court for a preliminary ruling. The Court then notes that the planning decision on the location of the landfill in question is one of the measures on which the final decision is taken whether to allow this installation. In addition, it includes information about the project's impact on the environment, the conditions imposed on the operator to mitigate these impacts, the objections raised by the parties to the planning process and the reasons for the choices made by the competent authority for issuing the decision. It therefore includes information relevant to the authorization procedure which the public concerned should have access under the Convention and the Directive on the prevention and reduction of pollution resuming its provisions.
In this context, the Court held that the refusal to provide the public planning decision cannot be justified by invoking the protection of the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information. The Court also notes that the public concerned should have all relevant information at the stage of the administrative procedure of first instance, before a first decision has been taken, provided that such information is available at this stage procedure. However, EU law does not preclude an unjustified refusal provision of the public concerned a planning decision in the administrative procedure of first instance can be regularized during the administrative procedure second instance provided that all options are still possible solutions and such adjustment and allows the public to exert a real influence on the outcome of the decision making process.
Next, the Court finds that the objective of the Directive to the prevention and reduction of pollution could be achieved if it were impossible to avoid an installation may have received an authorization violation Directive continues to operate pending a final decision on the legality of the authorization. Therefore, the Directive requires that members of the public concerned have the right to request the adoption of temporary measures to prevent such pollution, such as the temporary suspension of the authorization challenged.
Finally, the Court finds that the decision of a national court which cancels an authorization granted in breach of the Directive is not likely, as such, constitute an unjustified invasion of ownership of the operator.
