Introduction
On 16 July 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) delivered its judgment in joined cases C-27/25 and C-356/25, bearing the ECLI identifier ECLI:EU:C:2026:596. The proceedings arose from two separate requests for a preliminary ruling submitted by Irish courts: the Court of Appeal (Ireland) in case C-27/25, by decision of 13 December 2024, and the High Court (Ireland) in case C-356/25, by decision of 11 April 2025.
Both requests were received at the Court of Justice on 17 January 2025 and 27 May 2025 respectively, and were subsequently joined. The central legal question referred to the Court concerned the interpretation of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, commonly referred to as the Habitats Directive.
The cases arose in the context of wind farm development projects in Ireland and touch on a practically significant issue: how the obligations of appropriate assessment and screening under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive apply when the competent authority has not yet set conservation objectives specific to a special protection area (SPA) that may be affected by a proposed plan or project.
Background and parties
The proceedings in case C-27/25 were brought by SU and Wild Ireland Defence CLG against An Coimisiún Pleanála (previously known as An Bord Pleanála), the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, and the Attorney General. Knocknamona Windfarm Limited participated as a notice party.
The proceedings in case C-356/25 were brought by Paddy Massey against An Coimisiún Pleanála, Ireland, the Attorney General, and the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, with Curns Energy Limited as notice party.
An Coimisiún Pleanála is the Irish planning authority with responsibility for deciding on certain categories of development consent, including wind energy infrastructure. The involvement of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, and the Attorney General reflects the constitutional and statutory dimensions of the dispute, given that the questions raised concern the compatibility of Irish administrative practice with binding EU environmental law obligations.
The European Commission also submitted observations, as is customary in preliminary ruling proceedings where questions of EU law interpretation are at stake. The Fourth Chamber was composed of I. Jarukaitis as President of the Chamber, together with Judges M. Condinanzi, N. Jääskinen, R. Frendo, and A. Kornezov as Rapporteur. Advocate General J. Kokott delivered her Opinion at the sitting on 16 April 2026.
The legal framework: Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive
The Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, establishes a framework for the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora across the European Union. Article 6(3) of that Directive is the provision at the heart of these joined cases.
Article 6(3) establishes a two-stage procedure for plans and projects that are not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a protected site but which are likely to have a significant effect on it. The first stage is a screening assessment, through which the competent authority determines whether the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on the site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. If that likelihood cannot be excluded, the second stage requires an appropriate assessment of the implications of the plan or project for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives.
The judgment also engages with Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of wild birds, which governs the designation and management of special protection areas. SPAs designated under the Birds Directive are subject to the protection regime of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive by virtue of Article 7 of that Directive.
The specific factual and legal difficulty addressed in these joined cases is the situation where a special protection area has been designated but where the competent authority has not yet formally set site-specific conservation objectives for that area. This raises the question of whether, and on what basis, the screening and appropriate assessment obligations under Article 6(3) can be fulfilled in the absence of such objectives.
The questions referred and their significance
The referring courts — the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Ireland — sought guidance from the Court of Justice on the interpretation of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive in circumstances where conservation objectives specific to a special protection area had not been set by the competent national authority.
This question has direct practical relevance for the administration of development consent procedures in Ireland and, more broadly, across EU member states. Wind farm projects and other infrastructure developments frequently require assessment under Article 6(3) where they may affect SPAs. If site-specific conservation objectives have not been formally established, there is uncertainty as to the reference point against which the likely significant effect and the integrity of the site are to be assessed.
The joined nature of the two cases — one from the Court of Appeal and one from the High Court — reflects the systemic character of the issue in Irish planning law and practice. The fact that both cases involve wind energy projects further underlines the relevance of the ruling for the renewable energy sector and its intersection with EU nature conservation obligations.
The judgment, delivered following a hearing on 25 March 2026 and after the Advocate General's Opinion of 16 April 2026, provides authoritative guidance on the interpretation of Article 6(3) in this specific context, binding on all national courts and authorities within the EU.
Procedural aspects and institutional context
The preliminary ruling procedure under Article 267 TFEU allows national courts to refer questions of EU law interpretation to the Court of Justice. The procedure is a cornerstone of the EU legal order, ensuring uniform application of EU law across all member states. In these joined cases, both the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Ireland exercised their power — and in the case of a court of last instance, their obligation — to seek a ruling from the Court of Justice before determining the national proceedings.
The decisions to refer were made on 13 December 2024 by the Court of Appeal and on 11 April 2025 by the High Court. The relatively swift progression to a hearing on 25 March 2026 and judgment on 16 July 2026 reflects the Court of Justice's management of joined cases and the importance of the questions raised for ongoing national proceedings.
The participation of the European Commission as an intervener, alongside the Irish State parties and the private developers, illustrates the multi-stakeholder character of EU environmental law litigation. The Commission's role is to assist the Court in ensuring that EU law is correctly interpreted and applied, without taking a position on the outcome of the national proceedings themselves.
The judgment is published in the digital reports of cases and has official status, as noted in the document. It is available in all official EU languages, including Irish (GA), reflecting the linguistic obligations of EU institutions and the particular significance of the case for Ireland.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2026 in joined cases C-27/25 and C-356/25 addresses a significant and practically important question in EU environmental law: the application of the screening and appropriate assessment obligations under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive where site-specific conservation objectives for a special protection area have not been formally set. Arising from Irish planning disputes concerning wind farm developments, the ruling provides authoritative guidance that will be relevant to competent authorities, developers, and courts across the European Union.
The case underscores the importance of the Habitats Directive's protective framework for special protection areas and the need for national authorities to ensure that the absence of formally adopted site-specific conservation objectives does not undermine the effectiveness of the assessment obligations that EU law imposes. Practitioners and public authorities dealing with development consent procedures affecting SPAs should carefully consider the implications of this judgment in light of their specific national legal and administrative contexts.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications