In Case C-300/20 Bund Naturschutz in Bayern eV v Landkreis Rosenheim the Court in Grand Chamber held on the catchment area of the SEA aka the plans and programmes Directive 2001/42. The judgment builds upon Wind turbines at Aalter and Nevele.
In essence, while the Court has held that a broad interpretation of the concept of “plans and programmes” is consistent with the European Union’s international undertakings, such as those resulting, inter alia, from Article 2(7) of the Espoo Convention’ (Wind Turbines, [45] [46] [49]), it cannot be seriously argued that every statement of some planning and development intent at national level can be considered to ‘set a framework for development consent for projects and, for that reason, requiring an SEA prior to their adoption.’ (Opinion Campos Sánchez-Bordona AG). In the case at issue, the regional decision on the face of it was designed to prevent rather than encourage development of a given area, albeit its critics suggested the rule in practice had a diminishing protective effect seeing as the protected area was smaller than it had been before.
Whatever that long term overall impact, the CJEU like its AG had suggested, held [70] that the rule ‘lays down general prohibitions and makes provision for compulsory permits without laying down sufficiently detailed rules regarding the content, preparation and implementation of the projects’ such as referred to in the EAI Directive. Hence no SEA of the local rule was required.
Geert.
gavc law - geert van calster 