ORDER OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

20 May 2009 ( * )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Inadmissibility)

In Case C‑454/08,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom), made by decision of 8 September 2008, received at the Court on 16 October 2008, in the proceedings

Seaport Investments Limited

v

Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of J.‑C. Bonichot, President of the Chamber, L. Bay Larsen and C. Toader (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: Y. Bot,

Registrar: R. Grass,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

2 The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Seaport Investments Limited and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland concerning the lawfulness of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004.

3 The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland comprises an order that merely indicates that the questions set out in the schedule thereto are to be referred to the Court of Justice.

4 In that schedule, the national court referred the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) On the proper construction of Directive [2001/42] where a State authority which prepares a plan falling within Article 3 is itself the authority charged with overall environmental responsibility in the Member State, is it open to the Member State to refuse to designate under Article 6(3) any authority to be consulted for the purposes of Articles 5 and 6?

(2) On the proper construction of the directive, where the authority preparing a plan falling within Article 3 is itself the authority charged with overall environmental responsibility in the Member State, is the Member State required to ensure that there is a consultation body which will be designated that is separate from that authority?

(3) On the proper construction of the directive, may the requirement in Article 6(2) to the effect that the authorities referred to in Article 6(3) and the public referred to in 6(4) be given an early and effective opportunity to express their opinion “within appropriate timeframes”, be transposed by rules which provide that the authority responsible for preparing the plan shall authorise the time‑limit in each case within which opinions shall be expressed, or must the rules transposing the directive themselves lay down a time‑limit, or different time‑limits for different circumstances, within which such opinions shall be expressed?’

5 In addition, the order for reference is accompanied by a covering letter, enclosing the notice of the appeal by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland before the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland; the order of 13 November 2007 of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen’s Bench Division; and also the two judgments of that court of 7 September and 13 November 2007 against which the appeal has been lodged.

Admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling

7 In the context of that cooperation, it is for the national court seised of the dispute, which alone has direct knowledge of the facts giving rise to the dispute and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (see, inter alia, Case C-322/98 Kachelmann [2000] ECR I‑7505, paragraph 16; Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I‑2099, paragraph 38; and the order of 1 December 2005 in Case C‑116/05 Dhumeaux et Cie and Others , paragraph 19).

8 Nevertheless, the Court has pointed out many times that the need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-320/90 to C‑322/90 Telemarsicabruzzo and Others [1993] ECR I‑393, paragraph 6; Case C‑470/04 N [2006] ECR I‑7409, paragraph 69; and the order of 5 May 2008 in Case C‑386/07 Hospital Consulting and Others , paragraph 31).

9 The Court has also stressed that it is important for the national court to set out the precise reasons why it was unsure as to the interpretation of Community law and why it considered it necessary to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling (see, inter alia, the orders in Case C‑9/98 Agostini [1998] ECR I‑4261, paragraph 6; of 13 July 2006 in Case C‑166/06 Eurodomus , paragraph 10; and Hospital Consulting and Others , paragraph 32).

10 Since it is the order for reference which serves as the basis of the proceedings before the Court, it is for the national court to explain, in the order for reference itself, the factual and legislative context of the main proceedings, the reasons which have led the court to raise the question of the interpretation of certain provisions of Community law in particular, and the connection which it establishes between those provisions and the national law applicable to the case (see, to that effect, the orders in Case C‑116/96 REV Reisebüro Binder [1998] ECR I‑1889, paragraph 8, and Case C-116/00 Laguillaumie [2000] ECR I‑4979, paragraphs 23 and 24).

11 In that connection, it should be noted that the information provided in orders for reference serves not only to enable the Court to give helpful answers but also to give the governments of the Member States and the other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. It is the Court’s duty to ensure that that opportunity is safeguarded, bearing in mind that under that provision only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties, accompanied by a translation into the official language of each Member State (see Joined Cases 141/81 to 143/81 Holdijk and Others [1982] ECR 1299, paragraph 6, and the orders in Laguillaumie , paragraphs 14 and 24; Hanssens and Others , paragraph 10; and Dhumeaux et Cie and Others , paragraph 22).

12 In the present case, it is clear that the order for reference does not contain any information setting out the legislative and factual context of the main proceedings, since the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland merely appended to the letter accompanying the order for reference documents relating to the proceedings before the national courts. In addition, the referring court does not set out sufficiently clearly and precisely the reasons for its uncertainty as to the interpretation of Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 2001/42.

13 In those circumstances, it must be held, pursuant to Articles 92(1) and 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that the reference for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.

Costs

14 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby orders:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland by decision of 8 September 2008 is manifestly inadmissible.

[Signatures]

* Language of the case: English.