Introduction

In the landmark case Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v. Minister for Communications Climate Action and the Environment & ors ([2020] IEHC 383), the High Court of Ireland addressed significant issues pertaining to the jurisdiction of national courts in challenging European Union (EU) delegated regulations. The applicant, an environmental non-governmental organization (ENGO), contested the inclusion of the proposed Shannon LNG terminal and its connecting pipeline on the EU's list of "projects of common interest" (PCI) under the Trans European Energy Networks Regulation (TEN-E Regulation). The core of the dispute revolved around whether the European Commission had exceeded its delegated powers in approving the project without adequately meeting the sustainability criteria stipulated in the TEN-E Regulation.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court of Ireland ultimately dismissed the applicant's request to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The court held that there was no actual dispute or national implementing measure involved that would necessitate a preliminary reference. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application, emphasizing the stringent requirements for such references. The judgment also addressed the applicant's claims regarding Ireland's role in the decision-making process under the TEN-E Regulation and the obligations arising from the Aarhus Convention on Access to Environmental Justice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced pivotal case law to substantiate the court's reasoning. Key among these were:

• Dyson Case: Highlighted the limitations of delegated regulations when essential elements of the enabling act are not adhered to.
• Schrems I (Case C-362/14): Explored the complexities of preliminary reference procedures, especially in contexts where national implementing measures are absent.
• Jégo-Quéré (Case C-263/02): Reinforced the strict interpretation of standing requirements under Article 263 TFEU.
• Union de Pequeños Agricultores (Case C-50/00): Emphasized that national courts cannot expand standing criteria beyond what is established under EU law.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously dissected the interplay between Article 263 and Article 267 TFEU. It reaffirmed that:

• **Article 263 TFEU**: Allows for direct actions to annul EU acts but is constrained by strict standing requirements, necessitating that the act be of direct and individual concern to the applicant.
• **Article 267 TFEU**: Facilitates preliminary references to the CJEU but is limited to cases where a national court is faced with implementing measures or decisions that directly affect the case at hand.

The court concluded that since the applicant did not present a genuine dispute or identify any national implementing measure that would invoke Article 267, the preliminary reference was unwarranted. Furthermore, the absence of a privileged standing mechanism under Article 263 meant that the High Court could not entertain the reference independently.

Impact

This judgment underscores the rigid boundaries of national courts in challenging EU delegated regulations. It reinforces the necessity for applicants to navigate the established procedural routes meticulously, particularly emphasizing the limited scope of preliminary references when no national implementing measures exist. For environmental NGOs and other stakeholders aspiring to challenge EU decisions, this case elucidates the critical importance of ensuring that standing requirements are unequivocally met and that there exists a substantive dispute within national jurisprudence to warrant a preliminary reference.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v. Minister for Communications Climate Action and the Environment & ors serves as a critical reminder of the procedural confines within which national courts operate concerning EU delegated regulations. By denying the preliminary reference, the court emphasized the necessity of adhering to established standing requirements and the limited scope of such procedures in the absence of substantive national disputes. This judgment not only clarifies the operational boundaries between national and EU courts but also highlights the challenges faced by NGOs in seeking to influence EU energy infrastructure decisions. Moving forward, stakeholders must navigate these procedural landscapes with a clear understanding of their legal standing and the appropriate channels for challenging EU legislative acts.