SD EU dealt with the case concerning the operation of a landfill in Prague – Case law
The extension of the operation of the landfill itself is not a substantial change in the permit of the relevant facility, he stated in the judgment in Case C-43/21 FCC Czech Republic, published on Thursday 2 June 2022, Court of Justice of the EU. Such an extension for the landfill operator to apply for a new permit. In this case, the Industrial Emissions Directive does not require Member States to involve the public concerned in the decision-making process and guarantee them the right to judicial review of its legality.
The FCC Czech Republic operates a landfill in the Prague-Ďáblice district (Czech Republic) based on a permit issued in 2007. At the end of 2015, the FCC Czech Republic requested the City of Prague to postpone the planned dates for the closure of the landfill set for 31 December 2015. The City of Prague complied with this request and postponed the end date until 31 December 2017.
The City District of Prague-Ďáblice and Spolek pro Ďáblice, which is a Czech association for environmental protection, filed an appeal against the decision with the Czech Ministry of the Environment, which rejected it as inadmissible on the grounds that the appellants were not parties to the proceedings to change the operating permit. The appellants challenged the ministry’s decision before the Czech courts, claiming that the extension of the landfill’s operating time is a substantial change to its operating permit, which in accordance with the Industrial Emissions Directive1 establishes a right of participation of the public concerned.
The Czech Supreme Administrative Court, which decides in the dispute on the basis of a cassation complaint, also asks the Court whether the extension of the landfill’s operating time, which does not change either the maximum approved landfill dimensions or its total possible capacity, is a substantial change in its permit. operation.
In its judgment of 2 June 2022, the Court recalled that a substantial change to an installation is, in accordance with the Directive, both a change in its scope and a change in its nature or function if the change may have significant adverse effects on human health or the environment.
The Court found that the mere extension of the landfill’s operation does not in itself constitute a change in the size of the installation or the storage capacity provided for in the original permit and is therefore not a change in the size of the installation. Likewise, the extension of the landfill period itself is not a change in the equipment, whether in nature or in function. As the Directive does not require the original authorization to specify the period of operation, neither the extension of the operation itself can be required to be the subject of a new authorization.
The mere extension of the operation of a landfill is therefore not a substantial change in its operating permit. It follows that Member States are not obliged to require the landfill operator to apply for a new permit if he is considering only such an extension. within the limits of the total storage capacity which has already been approved.
In such a case, the Directive does not confer on the public concerned the right to take part in the renewal proceedings or to review its legality.
Full text of the judgment shall be published on the CURIA website on the day of publication.
Source: Court of Justice of the EU
Photo: canva.com
1 Directive 2010/75 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17).