E-17/25 Redd Ulleval Sykehus v. Norwegian State
Dit fiche is slechts een samenvatting. De verwijzingsbeschikking is bepalend
Klik hier voor het dossier van het EVA-hof (voor zover beschikbaar).
Deadlines: Motivation ministry: 8 September 2025 Written observations: 25 October 2025
Keywords: procedural shortcomings, construction permits and zoning plans, public administration
Subject: Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (SEA Directive): Article 2(a), Article 3(2)(a), Article 3(3) and (4); EEA Agreement between EFTA states: Article 3.
Facts of the case: The Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development issued two zoning plans for the construction of the new Oslo University Hospital in the areas of Gaustad and Aker in Oslo, which will replace the Ulleval Hospital, through partial demolition. Redd Ulleval Sykehus aims to prevent the closure of Ulleval Hospital and initiates a legal proceeding before the Oslo District Court, claiming that before the zoning plans were adopted an environmental impact assessment should have been conducted in accordance with the SEA Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC). As a result, the zoning plans and permit should be rendered invalid. According to the Norwegian State, the zoning plans fall under the scope of a different EU directive and the zoning plans have been issued accordingly. Furthermore, the Norwegian State claims that in such instances of procedural shortcomings, article 41 of the Norwegian Public Administration Act serves to uphold the validity of the zoning plans. The Oslo District Court asks the EFTA-Court whether the zoning plans fall under the scope of the SEA Directive and if article 41 of the Norwegian Public Administration Act is compatible with EU law.
Request for an advisory opinion: First Question regarding the scope of the SEA Directive 1. Which factors are relevant in the assessment of whether the following decisions (individually or collectively) constitute a "plan" under Article 2(a) and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/42/EC: I) a health enterprise's decision on a target image for a new hospital structure, adopted on the basis of its autonomy under private law; 2) a zoning plan; 3) State financing in the form of a loan limit decision? For the assessment under question 1: - Does it affect the assessment if a health enterprise's decision on a target image for a new hospital structure is adopted by the State as owner of the health enterprise on the basis of autonomy under private law (that is to say, not the State as planning and building authority)? - In the assessment of the term "plans and programmes" under Article 3(2)(a), of what significance is the project's size and nature? - Is the question whether or not the SEA Directive applies affected by whether an assessment has been carried out under the EIA Directive where the assessment under the EIA Directive does not include "reasonable alternatives" (see Article 5(1))?
Second Question regarding national rules on errors that have not affected the substance of a decision 2. Is it compatible with the EEA Agreement, including Article 3 thereof, for a national court, in proceedings involving alleged infringement of rules laid down in Directive 2001/42/EC, to apply a national rule providing that an administrative decision is valid if a court decides, on the basis of an overall assessment of the evidence in the case and without placing the burden of proof on the private party, that the error in question cannot have affected the substance of the decision? In the assessment of question 2: - Which legal criteria are relevant in such an assessment?
Cited (recent) case-law: C-420/11 (Leth); C-105/09 and C-110/09 (Terre wallonne ASEL and Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL v Region Wallonne); C-567/10 (InterEnvironnement Bruxelles and Others v Region de Bruxelles-Capitale); C-671/16 (Inter-Environnement Bruxelles and Others v Region de Bruxelles-Capitale); C-24/19 (A and Others); C-300/20 (Bund Naturschutz in Bayern); C-9/22 (An Bord Pleanala and Others); C-72/12 (Gemeinde A/trip and Others); C-137/14 (Commission v Germany, C-137/14)
Policy Area: BZK; VWS
