Introduction

The case of Alex Thompson and Shahla Thompson v An Bord Pleanála, Ireland and the Attorney General presented before the High Court of Ireland delves into procedural intricacies concerning judicial reviews and the interpretation of EU law within domestic legal frameworks. The dispute centers around a domestic development consent, raising pivotal questions about the timing and procedural avenues available for judicial review, and whether to seek guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through a preliminary reference.

Summary of the Judgment

Judge Humphreys presided over the case, which progressed through three iterations, ultimately culminating in the decision to make a preliminary reference to the CJEU. Initially, the court dismissed the applicants' case on procedural grounds, specifically highlighting a one-day delay in filing for judicial review which was not rectified despite statutory provisions allowing for extensions under limited circumstances. Subsequent judgments invited further submissions on EU law questions. In this third judgment, the court focused on procedural directions necessary to advance the matter, deciding to proceed with a preliminary reference to the CJEU to resolve questions of EU law interpretation that are not clear (acte clair) and thus require authoritative clarification.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that shaped its decision-making process:

• Eco Advocacy CLG v. An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 265: This case was pivotal in establishing the standard terms and procedural format for making preliminary references to the CJEU. The current judgment adopts and modifies these standards to fit the specifics of the present case.
• Thompson v. An Bord Pleanála (No. 1) [2024] IEHC 101: The initial dismissal based on procedural delays set the groundwork for recognizing the importance of timely judicial reviews within the statutory framework.
• Thompson v. An Bord Pleanála (No. 2) [2024] IEHC 639: This judgment opened the door for addressing EU law questions, underlining the necessity of clear interpretations in judicial proceedings involving EU directives and regulations.

These precedents collectively underscore the court's approach to balancing procedural rigor with the need for substantive legal clarity, especially when EU law implications are at stake.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning in this judgment is multifaceted:

• Procedural Compliance: The court meticulously examined procedural adherence, notably the timing of judicial review applications. The one-day delay by the applicants was deemed non-compliant with the statutory time limits, and the extension provisions were not sufficiently invoked.
• Interpretation of EU Law: Recognizing that the identified questions pertained to the interpretation of EU law rather than its application, the court determined that a preliminary reference to the CJEU was warranted. This aligns with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which allows national courts to seek authoritative interpretations of EU law.
• Amicus Curiae Considerations: The judgment addressed the involvement of amicus curiae, emphasizing the necessity for their contributions to align strictly with the parties' arguments to prevent procedural disarray. The refusal of Protect East Meath as an amicus highlights the court's stance on maintaining procedural integrity.
• Procedural Directions: Comprehensive procedural directions were issued to facilitate the CJEU reference, including deadlines for submissions, formatting requirements for document submissions, and coordination with the CJEU's procedural requirements.

Overall, the court balanced procedural strictness with procedural fairness, ensuring that the process for referring to the CJEU was clear, structured, and conducive to obtaining precise legal interpretations.

Impact

This judgment carries significant implications for future cases involving judicial reviews and EU law interpretations in Ireland:

• Procedural Framework: By setting detailed procedural directions for preliminary references to the CJEU, the judgment provides a clear roadmap for future litigants seeking EU law interpretations, enhancing procedural predictability.
• Time Limits for Judicial Review: The strict stance on procedural timelines reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines, potentially limiting late-stage challenges unless justified within the narrowly defined extension provisions.
• Amicus Curiae Participation: The cautious approach to amicus involvement serves as a guideline for future cases, ensuring that external inputs remain relevant and do not disrupt the judicial process.
• EU Law Integration: The willingness to refer questions to the CJEU underscores the High Court's commitment to harmonizing domestic jurisprudence with EU legal standards, fostering consistency in the application of EU law across member states.

Ultimately, the judgment enhances the High Court's procedural integrity and its role in the broader EU legal landscape, ensuring that complex legal questions are addressed with the appropriate depth and authority.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several intricate legal concepts are present in this judgment, necessitating clarification for broader understanding:

• Preliminary Reference to the CJEU: This is a mechanism where national courts seek guidance from the CJEU on the interpretation or validity of EU law. It's crucial when a national court faces questions that affect the outcome of a case and require authoritative interpretation.
• Acte Clair: A principle wherein if the correct application of EU law is sufficiently clear, national courts need not refer questions to the CJEU. However, if there is ambiguity, a reference becomes necessary.
• Amicus Curiae: These are "friends of the court"—individuals or organizations not directly involved in the case but who offer information, expertise, or insights that may assist the court in making its decision.
• Statutory Provision for Extension of Time: Laws that allow for the extension of deadlines under specific, limited circumstances. In this case, the applicants failed to meet these conditions.
• Article 267 TFEU: A provision allowing courts in EU member states to refer questions to the CJEU about the interpretation or validity of EU treaties or regulations.

Understanding these concepts is essential for comprehending the procedural dynamics and legal reasoning employed in the judgment.

Conclusion

The High Court's judgment in Thompson & Anor v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 41 serves as a cornerstone for procedural conduct in cases involving EU law interpretations and judicial reviews in Ireland. By meticulously outlining the process for making preliminary references to the CJEU and emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines, the court reinforces the sanctity of judicial procedures while ensuring alignment with broader EU legal standards. This decision not only clarifies procedural pathways for future litigants but also fortifies the integration of national and EU jurisprudence, promoting legal coherence and consistency.