Summary of Judgment (Anonymized)
Factual and Procedural Background
This document is an addendum prepared by the referring national court to a request for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-356/25. The addendum was issued by the referring court in light of written observations from the European Commission and is intended to clarify aspects of the original reference so as to assist the CJEU and the parties.
The domestic proceedings arise from a judicial review challenge to a development consent. The Plaintiff applied for quashing of that consent. The referring court previously refused to quash the permission, and that refusal is final for purposes of res judicata: the Plaintiff was refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on 30 May 2025 and was refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on 16 October 2025. Although the court has dismissed the application to quash the consent, the referring court has not finally determined whether a breach of Directive 92/43 (as applied to Directive 2009/147) occurred. As a consequence, the question of whether a breach occurred remains live and declaratory relief remains available and pending before the referring court.
The addendum addresses whether the referring court may clarify elements of its original reference (without "replying" to written observations) and explains why the referring court considers the referred question not moot.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a referring national court may issue an addendum to a request for a preliminary ruling to clarify points of fact, national law or procedure in light of written observations received (in particular observations from the European Commission), without thereby becoming a "party" to the preliminary procedure or improperly "replying" to the written observations.
- Whether the referred question is moot given that the national court's judgment refusing to quash the development consent is final (res judicata), and whether the existence of live issues of declaratory relief preserves the relevance of the reference.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Case C-58/24 (Drumakilla) |
Example of a referring court offering clarifications by way of an addendum to a request for a preliminary ruling. |
Used as precedent showing that an addendum has been offered previously; the Commission had commented on that practice and the referring court engages with that comment. |
| C‑600/23 (Royal Football Club Seraing v. Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Others) |
Preliminary ruling procedure as a "dialogue" between courts (Article 267 TFEU). |
Relied upon to support the view that a referring court may clarify aspects of a case that are defined by it in order to assist the CJEU in the dialogue without becoming a party to the procedure. |
| [2025] IESC 2 (B. v. The Child & Family Agency) |
Establishes the three-part test for granting declaratory relief under Irish law. |
Applied to explain that Irish law permits purely declaratory relief and to set out the factors the national court should consider (good reason to seek declaration; real and substantial issue; party with real interest to oppose). |
| [2025] IEHC 541 (Save The South Leinster Way v. An Coimisiún Pleanála (No. 2)) |
Discussion of declaratory relief in the planning context. |
Referenced as further authority on the availability of declarations without quashing a decision. |
| [2025] IEHC 204 (Byrne v. Fingal County Council) |
Example where a declaration as to breach was granted without quashing a decision. |
Listed among recent examples supporting the proposition that declarations may be granted while a consent remains unquashed. |
| [2025] IEHC 15 (Eco Advocacy CLG v. Company A) |
Another example of declaratory relief being granted. |
Identified as an instance where the court granted a declaration without quashing the decision. |
| [2024] IEHC 570 (Kennedy v. Company A) |
Further example of declaratory relief in the planning/judicial review context. |
Cited as an additional example consistent with the court's approach on declarations. |
| [2024] IEHC 300 (Carrownagowan Concern Group v. Company A) |
Example of a declaration granted without quashing. |
Included as an illustrative precedent. |
| [2024] IEHC 27 (Reid v. Company A (No. 7)) |
Another illustrative example of declaratory relief. |
Used to show a pattern of practice in the domestic courts. |
| Case C-166/22 (Hellfire Massy v. Residents Association v. Company A and Others), ECLI:EU:C:2023:545 |
Principle that a subsequent reference is admissible where an element of the case remains live; CJEU dismissed objections to admissibility on that basis. |
Relied upon as analogous authority supporting the referring court's view that the present reference is not moot because an element of the case (declaratory relief) remains live. |
| [2022] IESC 38; [2024] 1 I.R. 386 (Hellfire Massy v. Company A) |
Domestic judgments underlying the Hellfire Massy CJEU reference. |
Referenced to show that the domestic proceedings in that analogous matter involved a rejected challenge followed by a reference and CJEU consideration of admissibility. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The referring court first addresses the Commission's written observations which cautioned that the practice of notifying written submissions to the referring court should not be construed as permitting that court to "reply" to those observations or to become a party to the preliminary ruling procedure. The referring court accepts those limits in two respects: (a) it will not attempt to "reply" to written observations, and (b) it does not consider itself a "party" to the CJEU procedure.
However, relying on the CJEU's description of the preliminary ruling procedure as a "dialogue" between courts and on the Recommendations to national courts and tribunals concerning preliminary ruling procedures, the referring court explains that it may, without breaching the limits identified by the Commission, endeavour to clarify points of fact or national law or procedure when it considers such clarification would assist the CJEU in giving a useful reply. The court cites the Recommendations (paragraph 11 and paragraph 35) and the CJEU's reasoning in the Royal Football Club Seraing judgment to underpin this approach.
The court then clarifies the procedural posture of the domestic proceedings: the judgment refusing to quash the permission is final and has res judicata effect in relation to the quashing application; the Plaintiff has exhausted appeal remedies. Crucially, however, the referring court has not decided whether a substantive breach of the relevant EU directives occurred. The court explains that even if a breach is later established (following the CJEU's response to the reference), relief in the form of a declaration remains available and pending; that declaration is distinct from quashing relief and has ancillary consequences (for example, on costs).
The court analyses Irish law on declaratory relief, relying on the Supreme Court's three-part test identified in B. v. The Child & Family Agency, and notes further domestic authority and a series of recent High Court decisions in which declarations as to breach were granted without quashing the impugned decision. The court draws an analogy with the Hellfire Massy proceedings where the CJEU accepted the admissibility of a subsequent reference because an element of the case remained live.
On that basis the referring court concludes that the referred question is not moot: the matter remains relevant to the "substance" of the case because the live issue of declaratory relief is capable of producing legal effects and consequences even if the original quashing remedy was rejected. The court also records that all parties to the main proceedings agree the matter is not moot and none objected to the issue of the addendum.
Holding and Implications
Holding: It is ordered that the present addendum to the request for a preliminary ruling be transmitted to the CJEU.
Implications:
- The referring court will transmit the addendum to the CJEU so that the CJEU can consider the clarified points raised by the referring court.
- The court's transmission of the addendum is premised on the view that a referring court may, consistent with the preliminary ruling "dialogue" and the Recommendations, clarify factual or national-law aspects of the case without becoming a party to the procedure or "replying" to written observations.
- The decision confirms that, under domestic law, declaratory relief remains available even where quashing has been refused and that the existence of pending declaratory relief can keep a question relevant for the purposes of a preliminary reference. The opinion does not purport to establish a new binding precedent beyond the statement of these propositions as applied to the present referral.
- Direct effect on the parties: the addendum will be transmitted to the CJEU; the domestic proceedings remain live as to declaratory relief and related consequences (including costs).
Prepared by: Judge Humphreys (summary based exclusively on the provided opinion). All personal and organizational names in this summary have been anonymized in accordance with the anonymization protocol applied to the source text.