Sweetman v An Bord Pleanala (Approved) [2021] IEHC 777 (06 December 2021)

Sweetman v An Bord Pleanala (Approved) [2021] IEHC 777 (06 December 2021)

The threshold for re-opening the judgment is met due to new material from the EPA raising a fundamental issue about the interpretation of the Water Framework Directive, which may affect the outcome and has broader implications. The matter is referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on whether all water bodies must be characterised/classified and the obligations of competent authorities regarding non-classified water bodies.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 777
Parties
Applicant: Peter Sweetman; First Named Respondent: An Bord Pleanála; Second Named Respondent: Ireland and the Attorney General; Notice Party: Bradán Beo Teoranta; Notice Party: Galway County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Judgment; Application to Re Open and Preliminary Reference to CJEU
Outcome
Case re-opened; preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union ordered.
Legal Topics
Water Framework Directive, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Preliminary Reference, Surface Water Status, Environmental Protection
Environmental Law European Union Law Administrative Law Water Framework Directive Planning Permission Judicial Review Preliminary Reference Surface Water Status +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Sweetman

Applicant

An Bord Pleanála

First Named Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Second Named Respondent

Bradán Beo Teoranta

Notice Party

Galway County Council

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Judgment; Application to Re Open and Preliminary Reference to CJEU

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Water Framework Directive requires all water bodies, regardless of size, to be characterised and classified
  2. 2 Whether development consent can be granted for projects affecting non-classified water bodies
  3. 3 Obligations of competent authorities regarding non-classified water bodies

Ratio Decidendi

The threshold for re-opening the judgment is met due to new material from the EPA raising a fundamental issue about the interpretation of the Water Framework Directive, which may affect the outcome and has broader implications. The matter is referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on whether all water bodies must be characterised/classified and the obligations of competent authorities regarding non-classified water bodies.

Court Disposition

Case re-opened; preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union ordered.

Orders

  • Proceedings re-opened to consider new material from the EPA.
  • Preliminary reference made to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU on interpretation of the Water Framework Directive.