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 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.
The judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 3 July 2025 in Case C-771/24 clarifies the circumstances in which regulations governing the operation of car parks fall within the scope of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.
The proceedings originated in an action brought before the Belgian Council of State by the Belgian Parking Federation and Interparking against a 2021 regulation adopted by the Brussels-Capital Region. The applicants argued that the regulation should have been preceded by a strategic environmental assessment.
The Brussels-Capital Region contended that the regulation neither determined the number nor the location of car parks. In its view, it merely laid down operating conditions applicable to existing facilities and therefore did not constitute a « plan or programme » within the meaning of the Directive.
In answering the request for a preliminary ruling, the Court recalled that Directive 2001/42 pursues the objective of ensuring a high level of environmental protection. That objective requires the concepts of « plans and programmes » to be interpreted broadly so that measures capable of having significant environmental effects are not excluded from the Directive’s scope.
The Court further explained that a regulatory measure may qualify as a « plan or programme » even where it has no genuine planning dimension. It is sufficient that the measure is adopted by a competent authority on the basis of legislative or regulatory provisions and satisfies the criteria laid down by the Directive.
Turning to the material scope of the Directive, the Court observed that car parks form part of the transport sector because they constitute infrastructure essential to the mobility of persons and vehicles.
Accordingly, regulations laying down the operating conditions for car parks may fall within the scope of the Directive even if they do not regulate their location or capacity.
The Court then recalled that a strategic environmental assessment is required where a measure establishes a significant body of criteria or detailed rules capable of influencing the authorisation, implementation or operation of projects likely to have significant effects on the environment.
It emphasised that this assessment must be based on the actual content of the regulatory provisions and on the extent to which they frame the development of the projects concerned.
In the present case, the Court noted that the regulation contained provisions relating, inter alia, to lighting, rainwater infiltration infrastructure, electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle parking facilities.
Those provisions are capable of producing environmental effects. However, it is for the Belgian Council of State to determine whether they constitute a sufficiently significant body of criteria or detailed rules to make a strategic environmental assessment mandatory under the Directive.
The second preliminary question concerned the consequences of a failure to carry out such an assessment. The Court recalled that, as a rule, a measure adopted in breach of that obligation must be annulled or suspended by the competent national court.
It nevertheless acknowledged that, exceptionally, a national court may temporarily maintain the effects of such a measure where this is indispensable to avoid a legal vacuum liable to undermine environmental protection or the effective implementation of another obligation arising under EU law.
The Court stressed that this possibility remains exceptional and may be exercised only in compliance with the strict conditions laid down by EU law and national law.
Accordingly, the Court held that regulations governing the operation of car parks may constitute plans or programmes requiring a strategic environmental assessment under Directive 2001/42 where they establish a significant body of criteria or detailed rules governing the authorisation, implementation or operation of projects likely to have significant environmental effects, the assessment of those conditions being a matter for the national court. It further reiterated that the temporary maintenance of the effects of a measure adopted without the required environmental assessment is permissible only on an exceptional basis and under strictly defined conditions.
For those reasons, the Court ruled as follows:
1. Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that:
National legislation laying down the operating conditions for car parks, while containing no rules governing their location or maximum number, must be subject to a strategic environmental assessment where, first, it has been prepared for the transport sector or the sector of town and country planning or land use and, secondly, by laying down rules and control procedures applicable to the sector concerned, it establishes a significant body of criteria or detailed rules for the authorisation and implementation of one or more projects likely to have significant effects on the environment.
2. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, where it becomes apparent that a strategic environmental assessment within the meaning of Directive 2001/42 should have been carried out before the adoption of a regulatory measure whose legality is challenged before a national court, with the result that the measure must be regarded as contrary to EU law, that court may maintain the effects of the measure in order to enable the competent authority to carry out the required environmental assessment and, where appropriate, amend the measure only where national law permits it to do so in the proceedings before it, where such maintenance is necessary to ensure the implementation of another EU environmental protection measure, such as Directive (EU) 2018/844, and only for the period strictly necessary to remedy that unlawfulness.
To access the judgment, please follow the link:https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0771.