- within Law Department Performance, Strategy, Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
EU
ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION SIMPLIFICATION PACKAGE
As noted in our December Horizon Scanner update, the European Commission proposed a suite of measures on 10 December 2025 to simplify environmental legislation. These measures aim to reduce the administrative burden in areas of environmental assessments, industrial emissions, the circular economy and geospatial data. Under proposed revisions to the Industrial Emissions Directive, Environmental Management Systems ("EMS") will be prepared at company level within the same Member State, meaning a separate EMS will not be required for each installation. The content of EMS will be simplified, and the monitoring requirements for back-up generators under the Medium Combustion Plants Directive will be reduced.
A proposed Regulation will also accelerate and simplify environmental assessments. A single point of contact will be introduced to co-ordinate permit-granting for projects in all sectors. Furthermore, where a judicial review relates to environmental assessments, Member States will be empowered to only permit arguments not raised during the administrative stage. A maximum duration will be in place for screening and environmental assessments. Faster permitting will apply to projects in strategic sectors defined under EU legislation, including circular economy-related projects, affordable housing and net-zero technology manufacturing projects. Data sharing will be introduced for assessments, screening, decisions and monitoring of environmental effects.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND SIMPLIFICATION PACKAGE
An Affordable Housing Plan (435 KB), published on 16 December 2025, promotes actions to be taken by the EU and Member States to support affordable, sustainable and quality housing. A key action at EU level is to prepare a simplification package for housing, to be presented in 2027. The Commission will propose a new Affordable Housing Act, with the intention of simplifying administrative procedures such as planning and permitting to promote housing affordability. A new European Housing Alliance, to be established in Q3 2026, will encourage co-operation on housing policy at an EU level. Additionally, State aid rules will be revised to facilitate Member States in supporting affordable housing. An action plan to lower household energy bills is under preparation.
PROPOSED EUROPEAN OCEAN ACT
The European Commission launched a call for evidence on the European Ocean Act, which will run until 9 February 2026. The act is intended to align measures proposed under the revision of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (the "MSP Directive") and the revision of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (see information on call for evidence below).
Among the amendments to be introduced to the MSP Directive are measures to reduce conflicts between various maritime activities, to encourage investment and to increase cooperation between Member States in several areas, including the development of renewable energy and the allocation of shipping lanes. Maritime protected areas will also be assigned under the revisions. The act is expected to be adopted later in 2026. A proposed Regulation will also accelerate and simplify environmental assessments. A single point of contact will be introduced to co-ordinate permit-granting for projects in all sectors.
REVISION OF THE MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE ("MSFD")
A call for evidence on the MSFD is open until 9 March 2026. The objective of the MSFD is to achieve good environmental status in all EU marine waters. It obliges Member States to develop strategies to ensure their seas are used sustainably. In its recent evaluation, the Commission found shortcomings in the regulatory framework, implementation and governance, in addition to an unnecessary administrative burden for Member States. The proposed revision is intended to simplify the MSFD. It is expected that the proposal will be published in Q4 2026.
Ireland
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PUBLISHES GENERAL SCHEME OF THE CIVIL REFORM BILL
The General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill would introduce reforms in relation to discovery and civil procedure. It would also create case conduct principles requiring parties to identify, define and narrow issues at the earliest stage, conduct proceedings in a just and expeditious manner, minimising costs and use alternative dispute resolution where appropriate. There would be a presumption against granting adjournments, extensions or stays in the bill.
The Bill would place judicial review on a statutory basis and introduce important reforms. New requirements to obtain a remedy would be introduced. The impugned error of law or procedural error would have to be material for relief to be granted. In determining materiality, the Court would be required to take into account whether, if the error had not occurred, a different decision would have been made which would have placed the applicant in a materially better position. A new public interest test would also be introduced. Costs would only be awarded where the Court's decision provides a significant benefit to the applicant. The Government has not indicated a timeline for publication of the Bill.
PROVISIONS OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT (THE "2024 ACT") COMMENCED
Provisions related to development plans and urban, priority and coordinated area plans under the 2024 Act came into operation on 31 December 2025. Existing development plans and local area plans will continue in force for the remainder of their stated durations, or until a new development plan is made under the 2024 Act. However, where a provision of a development plan conflicts with a provision of the National Planning Framework ("NPF") or a Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy ("RSES"), the NPF or RSES takes precedence. Where a provision of a local area plan conflicts with a provision of the NPF, a RSES, development plan or a National Planning Statement, the NPF, RSES, development plan or National Planning Statement takes precedence.
All sections governing national plans and policies have now commenced. Chapter 1 of Part 7 is also in operation. This chapter enables planning authorities to prepare housing strategies to ensure that adequate land has residential zoning.
Part 18, which governs the Office of the Planning Regulator, is now in effect, with the exception of one section dependent on the establishment of an Advisory Board to oversee the office (section 550). Sections 391-401 of the 2024 Act are also in operation. These sections govern the carrying out of surveys and inspections by persons appointed by the Commission, MARA or a planning authority. Certain sections of Part 19 and Part 20 have also been commenced. The commencements establish governance and confidentiality requirements for planning authorities, and set out rules on the recovery of expenses by planning authorities.
SCALE OF FEES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEWS
Consultation on the scale of fees for judicial reviews under the 2024 Act runs until 15 January 2026. Separate scales are proposed for standard, complex and very complex cases, as categorised by the presiding judge in respective cases. The proposed scale of fees covers various workstreams, from work conducted up to filing a Statement of Opposition, to work conducted up to the third modularisation of a hearing and work relating to an appeal. A financial assistance mechanism is also provided for in the 2024 Act (section 295). A report published alongside the consultation (166 KB) notes a policy decision not to introduce this mechanism in the near future.
Domestic judgments
HIGH COURT DISMISSES CHALLENGE AGAINST WIND FARM ON THE BASIS OF DEFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
The applicants in these High court proceedings challenged the grant of permission (616 KB) for a wind farm in Cork and Kerry. A ground related to the failure to publish the decision in Irish alongside the English-language decision failed. The applicant also argued that An Coimisiún Pleanála (the "Commission") failed to properly consider non-Qualifying Interest bird species, relying on the CJEU's Elliniki case, which held that conservation objectives must cover species protected under the Birds Directive if they are present in a "significant manner." The Court explained that significance - not mere occasional sightings - is key, as confirmed by EU guidance and data forms.
The applicant alleged that the Commission failed to apply up-to-date knowledge regarding collision risks. However, the Court found that there is no general duty to constantly monitor and apply every technical update unless it becomes a widely accepted industry standard. The applicant failed to prove the developer's science was deficient, so there was no legal error in relying on the existing approach.
The Court upheld the Commission's AA and EIA, finding no defects in its assessment of protected species, or landslide risk related to turbine relocation. It ruled that the Inspector and Commission properly considered site-specific conservation objectives and supporting materials, and that the absence of a detailed narrative did not mean a lack of consideration. Most claims were dismissed, with only a narrow aspect of Core Ground 3 held pending a separate CJEU reference.
HIGH COURT REFUSES RELIEF IN TWO CHALLENGES AGAINST THE GRANT OF PERMISSION FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURES
Doyle & Anor v. An Coimisiún Pleanála (506 KB) and McGowan & Anor v. An Coimisiún Pleanála (489 KB) were both heard by Justice Humphreys. The decisions relate to challenges against the grant of permission for single telecoms masts in Co. Meath and Co. Leitrim respectively. A public health argument was rejected in both instances. Justice Humphreys found that the Commission is entitled to rely on industry standards regarding health and safety, subject to compelling evidence in any particular case. He emphasised that potential health impacts are best addressed at policy level.
A central ground in both challenges alleged that masts are urban development, and therefore must undergo an environmental impact assessment. This ground failed in both instances. Justice Humphreys stressed the "nebulous" nature of the concept of urban development, noting it is largely evaluative. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the Commission exceeded its evaluative judgment in both challenges. The proceedings were dismissed.
QUESTIONS ON THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DIRECTIVE TO BE REFERRED TO THE CJEU
Justice Humphreys proposes referring four questions to the CJEU (597 KB) in connection with a challenge against the Design Standards for Apartments, Guidelines for Planning Authorities, issued on 8 July 2025 (the "Guidelines"). The applicants allege that a strategic environmental assessment ("SEA") should have been carried out in respect of the Guidelines, which contain specific planning policy requirements ("SPPRs"). The central question is whether the Guidelines "set the framework for future development consent" pursuant to Article 3(2)(a) of the SEA Directive. In his decision, Justice Humphreys stressed that there is a broad interpretation of the SEA Directive in EU case law, given its objective to provide for a high level of protection for the environment.
Subject to any amendments in the formal judgement for reference, the four questions for referral are summarised as follows:
- Do binding legal requirements, such as the SPPRs in the Guidelines, constitute a framework for future development consent under Article 3(2)(a) of the SEA Directive where they affect the number of housing units within a project, and their internal features and external appearance, but not the number, location, size, operating conditions or funding of apartment projects themselves?
- If the answer is no, are those binding legal requirements a framework for future development consent (under Article 3(2)(a)) if they derogate from other plans that were required to be subject to an SEA, or that were subject to an SEA?
- Does the notion of a framework for future development consent (under Article 3(2)(a)) exclude a plan where domestic law obliges competent authorities to consider that plan when granting development consent, but does not impose an obligation to comply with it?
- In relation to the issues raised in the preceding questions, should Article 3 of the SEA Directive be interpreted and/or applied by Member States and/or competent authorities so as to comply with Articles 7 and/or 8 of the Aarhus Convention to the fullest extent possible?
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.
