EU
Agreement reached on targeted amendments to Waste Framework Directive in respect of textiles and food waste
Amendments to the Waste Framework Directive will make producers responsible for the full lifecycle of textile products. Each Member State must establish an extended producer responsibility scheme for textiles and footwear.
Amendments will also be introduced for the management of food waste, with the introduction of binding food waste reduction targets. By 2030, Member States must reduce food waste by 10% in processing and manufacturing, and by 30% jointly at retail and consumption. A provisional agreement on the amendments has been reached at trialogue stage. The European Parliament and Council must formally adopt the revised Directive before it enters into force.
EU CASE LAW
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott considers concept of 'deliberate harm' to birds
Deliberate acts of harm against wild birds are prohibited under Article 5 of the Birds Directive, subject to limited derogations under Article 9. In her opinion, AG Kokott considered whether the prohibition on deliberate harm under Article 5 applies to all European birds, including common species. She considered that, if the Article 5 prohibitions applied to all species during all seasons without restriction, this would conflict against fundamental rights, such as the right to conduct a business and to own, use and dispose of property. This is because of the material restrictions which would be imposed in certain areas, such as forestry or construction.
The Advocate General suggested that the CJEU's interpretation should be that Article 5 prohibits harm that "relates to bird species which are particularly rare or, in the light of the best available scientific knowledge, are particularly endangered". She considered that the Article 5 prohibitions are necessary in these cases "in order to maintain the species concerned at a level which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to adapt it to that level." It remains to be seen whether the CJEU will adopt this interpretation in its ruling, which is still awaited. If AG Kokott's opinion is accepted, there will be long-awaited clarity for developers in this area.
DOMESTIC UPDATES
Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage publishes Implementation Plan for the Planning and Development Act 2024
The implementation plan sets out an indicative timeline for the commencement of various sections of the 2024 Act. Most notably, provisions related to judicial review are expected to be commenced in Q2 of this year, subject to engagement with the Courts Service and other bodies. Provisions related to costs of judicial reviews will be among the final batch of sections to be commenced, at a time to be confirmed. The plan also sets out that the planning regime will now use thresholds to exclude projects from the requirement to carry out an environmental impact assessment. At present, "inclusion thresholds" only determine when a project must undergo an environmental impact assessment, but no projects are automatically excluded.
The European Union (Water Policy) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 enter into force
The regulations amend the European Union (Water Policy) Regulations 2003. Under the 2003 Regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is obliged to characterise river basin districts. The new amendments introduce obligations on the EPA to: (i) identify pressures on surface water bodies in each river basin district, and (ii) assess the impact of those pressures. Amendments have also been introduced in respect of the water monitoring carried out by the EPA.
The European Union Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 and the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 enter into force
Both regulations amend the existing Groundwater and Surface Water regulations. The regulations introduce new schedules in relation to the monitoring of ecological status and chemical status for surface waters, the design of the EPA's surveillance monitoring programmes and the design of investigative monitoring programmes carried out by public authorities. The schedules also set out how the chemical status of groundwater is to be assessed and presented, in addition to monitoring requirements for protected areas and the standards to which monitoring must conform.
DOMESTIC JUDGMENTS
Court of Appeal sets out role of EPA in assessing the off-site environmental impacts of industrial emissions licences
This case concerns the appeal of a High Court decision which refused to quash an industrial emissions (IE) licence granted by the EPA to a poultry farm. The licence allowed for the transport of poultry litter and wash water off-site. The central question was whether the EPA was obliged to assess the environmental impacts of spreading this off-site material as part of the licensing process.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that the EPA's jurisdiction is limited to assessing and regulating on-site activities listed in the First Schedule to the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992. Although the conditions attached to the IE licence acknowledged that land spreading might occur and imposed record-keeping requirements, this was not considered to amount to the authorisation of off-site activities beyond the EPA's jurisdiction. The Court found that the EPA was entitled to have regard to the wider regulatory framework, including the role of other statutory bodies in regulating land spreading, and dismissed the appeal.
High Court dismisses challenge against Ireland's Climate Action Plan 2023 (CAP23)
Friends of the Irish Environment sought an order quashing CAP23 and/or its associated annex of actions, and requiring the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and the Government of Ireland to adopt a new climate action plan consistent with its obligations under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (the Climate Act). The applicant alleged that there was a lack of specificity in the plan as to how compliance with climate objectives and targets would be secured. The Court observed that there is a limit to the level of detail that any plan can provide, but observed that the Climate Act "demands a fair bit more than a merely reasonable plan – it must be a plan that ensures compliance with carbon budget and sectoral ceilings." Justice Humphreys observed that although estimation might be involved, no element of the budget can be purely narrative and qualitative.
The Court considered that the relevant test is whether the level of reasons (or specificity) in CAP23 was sufficient to enable a participant in the public consultation process to evaluate the plan in terms of whether it was "realistic", or likely to meet its statutory objectives. The Court considered that the only conceivable way to assess the adequacy of the plan was through a budget breakdown of its various measures to form a total figure of emissions. However, the applicant did not engage in this exercise. For this reason, Justice Humphreys determined that the applicant failed to show that a reasonable person, given the level of quantification on the face of the plan, would be unable to evaluate whether it is realistic. He noted that this does not mean that a future applicant couldn't interrogate the material before the Government in detail to demonstrate its insufficiency. The Court noted that: "Ultimately, the complaint that the figures aren't justified doesn't get off the ground when the applicant hasn't made any real attempt to engage with the material that the plan does contain." The High Court dismissed the proceedings.
High Court considers requirements of Water Framework Directive
In a judgment concerning a challenge against a grant of permission at Dublin Airport, the High Court considered the correct application of Article 4(1) of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The applicant argued that the Board was obliged to consider whether the development would: (i) diminish the water status of a nearby stream, and (ii) jeopardise the attainment of good water status by the stream. The applicant considered that the Board had failed to carry out the analysis required by the second obligation.
The High Court considered the CJEU's previous interpretation of Article 4(1), stating that: "There is no principle that permission must be refused if it doesn't contribute positively to the attainment of the WFD objectives." Justice Humphreys did not accept the argument that the WFD requires a permission to be refused unless that permission positively contributes to the restoration of good status to any relevant water body. The Court dismissed the proceedings.
This article contains a general summary of developments and is not a complete or definitive statement of the law. Specific legal advice should be obtained where appropriate.
