EU Judgment in Case C-41/24 Waltham Abbey Residents Association
06 March
Thursday 6th March 2025
EU Judgment in Case C-41/24 Waltham Abbey Residents Association
(Environment)
The case concerns a strategic development project for 123 apartments in Ballincollig, Ireland. As part of the application process, the developer submitted environmental reports under Directive 2011/92/EU (the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive) and Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive). However, both reports were found to be insufficient.
The environmental impact assessment failed to analyse the local flora and fauna, omitting any reference to bats, a species protected under EU law. Further, the appropriate assessment focused solely on designated Natura 2000 sites and did not consider the ecosystem of the development site itself. Finally, a separate tree assessment identified 13 trees for removal but failed to consider whether these were used by bats for roosting or feeding.
Despite these gaps, the planning authority approved the project without requiring a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), concluding that the development was unlikely to have significant environmental effects based on its size, nature, and location.
On July 7, 2020, a third party submitted observations highlighting the site’s proximity to a biological corridor along the River Lee and presenting evidence of bats in the area. They also cited a 2016 study confirming various bat species’ reliance on the local habitat.
The planning authority approved the project without requiring a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), concluding that the development was unlikely to have significant environmental effects based on its size, nature, and location. The authority did not seek any further information, requiring only that tree felling be supervised by an ecologist to mitigate potential impacts on bats.
The applicant challenged this decision before the High Court (Ireland), arguing that the authority failed to meet its obligations under the EIA Directive and the Habitats Directive, particularly in applying the precautionary principle and protecting species under strict legal safeguards.
The High Court has referred several questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. It seeks clarification on whether authorities must demand additional studies when environmental concerns arise — especially regarding protected species—and whether the precautionary principle requires a full EIA when there is reasonable doubt