Introduction

The case of Save Roscam Peninsula CLG & Ors v An Bord Pleanála & Ors (No. 3) [2022] IEHC 425, adjudicated by the High Court of Ireland on July 14, 2022, represents a significant procedural milestone in the realm of environmental judicial reviews. The applicants, Save Roscam Peninsula CLG along with Sophie Cacciaguidi-Fahy, Martin Fahy, and Philip Harkin, challenged decisions made by An Bord Pleanála and other governmental bodies under the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011. Central to the dispute was the interpretation of environmental laws in the context of the Aarhus Convention, necessitating a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Summary of the Judgment

In this third judgment of the series, Justice Humphreys addressed procedural matters preceding the formal order for reference to the CJEU. The key points include:

• A refusal to grant a declaration for costs protection under sections 50B and the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 in a prior judgment.
• The granting of leave to appeal under section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
• Directions for the preparation and submission of documents to the CJEU, including specifics on electronic formatting and deadlines.
• The absence of amici curiae submissions as none were proposed by the parties.
• The compilation of relevant EU, international, and domestic legal materials to assist the CJEU.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

While this judgment primarily deals with procedural directives, it references previous judgments in the series [No. 1 and No. 2] which laid the groundwork for the current proceedings. These earlier judgments addressed the applicants' entitlements under specific sections of the Planning and Development Act and the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, as well as the interpretative challenges under the Aarhus Convention. Although no new case law is established here, the procedural handling aligns with established practices in referring cases to the CJEU for EU law interpretation.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Humphreys meticulously outlines the procedural steps necessary for the CJEU reference. This includes the submission formats, deadlines, and the necessary documentation, ensuring compliance with both national and EU procedural requirements. By doing so, the Court ensures that the reference process is transparent, orderly, and adheres to legal standards, facilitating an efficient review by the CJEU.

Impact

This judgment underscores the High Court's role in managing procedural aspects of judicial reviews that implicate EU law. By setting clear directives for the CJEU reference, the Court ensures that future cases involving complex interpretations of environmental laws and international conventions like the Aarhus Convention are handled with procedural precision. Additionally, the lack of amici curiae involvement may indicate a higher threshold for third-party participation in such specialized legal proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Judicial Review

Judicial review is a process by which courts examine the actions of public bodies to ensure they comply with the law. In this case, the applicants sought to challenge decisions made by planning authorities on environmental grounds.

Reference to the CJEU

A reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is a mechanism whereby national courts seek interpretations of EU law to ensure consistent application across member states. This is crucial for cases involving complex EU regulations, such as environmental directives.

Ami Curiae

Ami curiae (friends of the court) are individuals or organizations not directly involved in a case but who offer information or expertise relevant to the matter. In this judgment, no amici curiae were proposed to assist in the CJEU reference.

Conclusion

The High Court's judgment in Save Roscam Peninsula CLG v An Bord Pleanála (No. 3) serves as a pivotal procedural guide for future environmental judicial reviews requiring CJEU involvement. By delineating clear steps for document submission and reference procedures, the Court ensures that complex environmental and planning disputes are navigated with legal certainty and efficiency. This not only facilitates the accurate interpretation of EU environmental laws but also reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding principles of transparency and legal rigor in environmental governance.