The Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) strengthens permit certainty in environmental impact assessment – no second hearing round for authority reports required

Why this ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) on environmental impact assessment (EIA) is also groundbreaking for Germany.

An environmental impact assessment (EIA) has long been standard practice in German permit procedures for large construction and infrastructure projects. Whether wind farm, industrial facility, road construction or airport – no building permit is granted without an environmental impact assessment. The core of every EIA is the participation of the public and specialist authorities. However, there are recurring disputes aboutwhenandhow oftenaffected parties and environmental associations must be involved in the environmental impact assessment procedure.

Withjudgment of 1. August 2025(C‑461/24)the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) has decided two central disputed questions:

• May authorities and the public beheard at the same time?
• Must the public be given the opportunity to comment once more after specialist authorities have submitted their reports?

The Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) answers both in favour of the permit authorities – a milestone for faster, legally secure administrative procedures in Germany as well.

What was the case about? Dispute over environmental impact assessment in the granting of a wind farm permit in Spain

An environmental association sued in Galicia against the permit for a wind farm. The accusation: the Spanish authorities had not involved the public sufficiently. Specifically, there had been a 30-day public display period for the environmental impact assessment report –but: after numerous specialist authorities (water management, nature conservation, health, etc.) had submitted their comments, the public had not been consulted again.

The Higher Court of Galicia saw this as a violation ofArt. 6 Abs. 3 UVP-Richtlinie (2011/92/EU), according to which 'the main reports and recommendations' must be made available to the public. It therefore referred the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH):

1. Does this concept necessarily also include subsequent specialist authority reports?
2. Must the public be given a second opportunity to comment?
3. Do national provisions without a second hearing round violate EU law?

The legal assessment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH)

1. Temporal flexibility in consultations

The Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) first emphasises that Art. 6 EIA Directive does not prescribe a fixed sequence:

• authorities (with environmental responsibilities) and the public may beheard at the same time.
• Member States have discretion in how they organise the procedure.
• A sequential temporal order is not prescribed.

2. No obligation for a second hearing round

Crucially: Union law does not require that the public be given a further opportunity to comment on the authority reports later.

• The 'main reports and recommendations' pursuant to Art. 6 Abs. 3 concern primarily the documents thatare available at the time of the public display period.
• Later authority reports arenot automaticallyincluded.
• A second comment phase is thereforenot mandatory.

3. Effective participation remains guaranteed

For a lawful environmental impact assessment it is sufficient if:

• The project sponsor submits acomprehensive environmental impact assessment report.
• This report is made available to the public at an early stage (at least 30 days).
• The public has sufficient opportunity to submit opinions and concernsbeforethe permit is granted.

In this way the principle of effective participation (recitals 16–19 EIA Directive, Aarhus Convention) is maintained.

4. Avoidance of procedural delays

The Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) points out that a second hearing round:

• would unreasonably prolong permit procedures.
• conflicts with the objective of the Directive to make decisions efficiently and within appropriate timeframes (Recital 36).

Practical significance for German licensing procedures

This judgment has implications beyond Spain:

• In Germany too, environmental associations often demand asecond consultationwhen authority reports are only prepared at a later stage.
• The EuGH judgment makes clear:A single, early public consultation is sufficient– provided the EIA report contains all relevant information.
• This reduces the risk that courts will quash permits due to allegedly insufficient consultation.

Advantages for project developers and authorities

• Legal certainty:permits become less vulnerable to challenges.
• Planning security:projects such as wind farms, roads or industrial facilities can be implemented more quickly.
• Administrative efficiency:authorities save time and resources because duplicate hearings are eliminated.

Our specialist legal recommendation

For investors, project developers and authorities, this means:

• Environmental impact assessment procedures should beprepared early and comprehensively.
• The environmental impact assessment report must becomplete and qualified– then no second consultation is necessary.
• In pending litigation, you can rely on this EuGH judgment to defend permits.

Asexperts in administrative law, AVANTCORE Rechtsanwältesupports younationwide from Stuttgart:

• project developers inlegally secure planning and implementation of EIA procedures,
• licensing authorities indefending against litigationand
• investors inlitigation-proof implementation of major infrastructure projects.

Contact usforindividual advice– we protect your project against procedural errors and litigation risks.