In its judgment of 16 July 2026 (Joined Cases C-27/25 and C-356/25), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive precludes a national authority from lawfully carrying out an appropriate assessment of a project affecting a Special Protection Zone (Zone de Protection Spéciale – ZPS) where the site-specific conservation objectives for that zone have not been adopted beforehand. The Court further held that, prior to the adoption of those conservation objectives, only the geographical delimitation of the area potentially affected may be undertaken, whereas the assessment of the project’s effects on the protected site cannot. The judgment thus reinforces the principle that site-specific conservation objectives are a necessary and indispensable prerequisite for the protection regime governing Natura 2000 sites

In its judgment of 16 July 2026 (Joined Cases C-27/25 and C-356/25), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive precludes a national authority from lawfully carrying out an appropriate assessment of a project affecting a Special Protection Zone (Zone de Protection Spéciale – ZPS) where the site-specific conservation objectives for that zone have not been adopted beforehand. The Court further held that, prior to the adoption of those conservation objectives, only the geographical delimitation of the area potentially affected may be undertaken, whereas the assessment of the project’s effects on the protected site cannot. The judgment thus reinforces the principle that site-specific conservation objectives are a necessary and indispensable prerequisite for the protection regime governing Natura 2000 sites

par | 20 juillet 2026 | *Europe

HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats In its judgment of 16 July 2026 (Joined Cases C-27/25 and C-356/25), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive precludes a national authority from lawfully...
Europe – Portugal – In its judgment of 9 July 2026 (Case C-166/25 – European Commission v Portuguese Republic), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Portugal had failed to fulfil its obligations by only partially and inaccurately transposing the provisions of Directive 2010/75 on industrial emissions. The Court clarified that administrative practices or mere interpretative guidance cannot substitute for a complete and legally binding transposition of a directive.

Europe – Portugal – In its judgment of 9 July 2026 (Case C-166/25 – European Commission v Portuguese Republic), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Portugal had failed to fulfil its obligations by only partially and inaccurately transposing the provisions of Directive 2010/75 on industrial emissions. The Court clarified that administrative practices or mere interpretative guidance cannot substitute for a complete and legally binding transposition of a directive.

par | 9 juillet 2026 | *Europe

HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats In its judgment of 9 July 2026 (Case C-166/25 – European Commission v Portuguese Republic), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Portugal had failed to fulfil its obligations by only partially...
Europe – Belgium – In its judgment of 3 July 2025 (Case C-771/24 – Fédération belge du stationnement ASBL and Interparking SA v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that regulations laying down the operating conditions for car parks, even though they contain no rules governing their location or maximum number, must be subject to a strategic environmental assessment where they establish a significant body of criteria or detailed rules capable of influencing projects likely to have significant effects on the environment. The Court further held that a national court may maintain the effects of such an unlawful measure in order to allow the competent authority to carry out the required environmental assessment and, where appropriate, amend the measure only where national law permits it in the proceedings before that court, where such maintenance is necessary to ensure the implementation of another EU environmental protection measure, and only for the period strictly necessary to remedy the unlawfulness

Europe – Belgium – In its judgment of 3 July 2025 (Case C-771/24 – Fédération belge du stationnement ASBL and Interparking SA v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that regulations laying down the operating conditions for car parks, even though they contain no rules governing their location or maximum number, must be subject to a strategic environmental assessment where they establish a significant body of criteria or detailed rules capable of influencing projects likely to have significant effects on the environment. The Court further held that a national court may maintain the effects of such an unlawful measure in order to allow the competent authority to carry out the required environmental assessment and, where appropriate, amend the measure only where national law permits it in the proceedings before that court, where such maintenance is necessary to ensure the implementation of another EU environmental protection measure, and only for the period strictly necessary to remedy the unlawfulness

par | 9 juillet 2026 | *Europe, B

HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats In its judgment of 3 July 2025 (Case C-771/24 – Fédération belge du stationnement ASBL and Interparking SA v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that regulations...
Europe – In its judgment of 2 July 2026 (Case C-447/25, Surovina RECE d.o.o. v Pest Vármegyei Kormányhivatal), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the Member State of destination of a shipment of waste intended for recovery, but not incineration, may lawfully object to that shipment where it is contrary to a national waste management plan established in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2008/98/EC

Europe – In its judgment of 2 July 2026 (Case C-447/25, Surovina RECE d.o.o. v Pest Vármegyei Kormányhivatal), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the Member State of destination of a shipment of waste intended for recovery, but not incineration, may lawfully object to that shipment where it is contrary to a national waste management plan established in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2008/98/EC

par | 3 juillet 2026 | *Europe

HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats Europe – In its judgment of 2 July 2026 (Case C-447/25, Surovina RECE d.o.o. v Pest Vármegyei Kormányhivatal), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the Member State of destination of a shipment...
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Résumé de la politique de confidentialité

Ce site utilise des cookies afin que nous puissions vous fournir la meilleure expérience utilisateur possible. Les informations sur les cookies sont stockées dans votre navigateur et remplissent des fonctions telles que vous reconnaître lorsque vous revenez sur notre site Web et aider notre équipe à comprendre les sections du site que vous trouvez les plus intéressantes et utiles.