Thompson & Anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors [No. 3] (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This dispute arises from a domestic development consent and involves procedural questions of EU law concerning the time limits for judicial review under the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended). The applicants challenged the statutory time limits, contending that the legal framework was contrary to EU law. The High Court previously held the applicants’ initial judicial review application was one day late and did not satisfy statutory extension provisions. The applicants were directed to notify the State of their EU law challenge. Subsequent judgments invited further submissions on EU law questions and procedural directions for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) were considered.

The procedural history includes amendments to the applicants' statement of grounds, applications for amicus curiae interventions, and the addition of Friends of the Irish Environment as amicus curiae. The Court refused an earlier amicus application on grounds that the proposed arguments exceeded those advanced by the applicants, which would be procedurally unfair and cause disorder. The Court also corrected the formal title of the proceedings to include the applicants' full names.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether questions of EU law concerning the timing for judicial review under the Planning and Development Act 2000 should be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU.
2. Whether the interpretation of the EU law provisions on judicial review time limits requires clarification by the CJEU rather than application of the national law alone.
3. The appropriate procedural directions to facilitate a formal reference to the CJEU.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• The applicants accept the general principle that time runs from the date of the decision but contend there are limited circumstances where this principle should be qualified.
• They challenge the statutory time limits on the basis that they may be contrary to EU law.
• The applicants did not argue that time should run from notification of the decision rather than the decision date itself.

State's Arguments

• The State interprets some of the applicants’ submissions as potentially attempting to revisit earlier arguments, which the Court found impermissible and inappropriate.
• The State submitted on the procedural and substantive aspects of the EU law questions raised.

Amicus Curiae Arguments

• A proposed amicus curiae (Protect East Meath) sought to argue that time limits should run from notification of the decision, especially where notification timing is discretionary. This was rejected as it exceeded the scope of the applicants' case.
• Friends of the Irish Environment were later admitted as amicus curiae without objection to provide submissions within the scope of the case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recognised that the questions raised involved interpretation of EU law rather than mere application of national law, and that the answers were not acte clair (self-evident). Because the answers were necessary to enable the Court to give judgment, the criteria for a preliminary reference to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU were met.

The Court carefully controlled the procedural scope, refusing to allow expansion of the case beyond the applicants’ pleaded grounds to prevent procedural unfairness and chaos. It emphasised that any amicus curiae must align strictly with the parties’ arguments and cautioned future applicants to thoroughly study case papers before intervening.

Procedural directions were issued to facilitate the reference, drawing on established practice and requiring parties to cooperate on document management and anonymisation of personal data for CJEU proceedings. The Court set a timetable for submissions and a mention date to ensure orderly progress.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was to refer the identified EU law questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU.

The procedural directions ensure the orderly conduct of the reference, including costs arrangements, document preparation, and data protection measures. The decision does not set new precedent beyond the referral itself but facilitates clarification of EU law necessary for the Court’s ultimate judgment on the applicants’ challenge to the statutory time limits.