Text · Amendment list
Speeding-up environmental assessments
Document ENVI-AM-790193 · COM(2025)0984 – C100337/2025 – 2025/0391(COD)
- Kind
- Amendment list ENVI-AM-790193
- Date
- 24 June 2026
- Committee
- Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety
- Dossier
- 2025-0391
More facts (2)
- Formats
- Official page PDF Word
- Reference
- COM(2025)0984 – C100337/2025 – 2025/0391(COD)
Text
The text as parsed from the official Word file. Every paragraph has a link (¶) and can be saved to a project as a passage.
Jump to an amendment (186)
- Amendment 230
- Amendment 231
- Amendment 232
- Amendment 233
- Amendment 234
- Amendment 235
- Amendment 236
- Amendment 237
- Amendment 238
- Amendment 239
- Amendment 240
- Amendment 241
- Amendment 242
- Amendment 243
- Amendment 244
- Amendment 245
- Amendment 246
- Amendment 247
- Amendment 248
- Amendment 249
- Amendment 250
- Amendment 251
- Amendment 252
- Amendment 253
- Amendment 254
- Amendment 255
- Amendment 256
- Amendment 257
- Amendment 258
- Amendment 259
- Amendment 260
- Amendment 261
- Amendment 262
- Amendment 263
- Amendment 264
- Amendment 265
- Amendment 266
- Amendment 267
- Amendment 268
- Amendment 269
- Amendment 270
- Amendment 271
- Amendment 272
- Amendment 273
- Amendment 274
- Amendment 275
- Amendment 276
- Amendment 277
- Amendment 278
- Amendment 279
- Amendment 280
- Amendment 281
- Amendment 282
- Amendment 283
- Amendment 284
- Amendment 285
- Amendment 286
- Amendment 287
- Amendment 288
- Amendment 289
- Amendment 290
- Amendment 291
- Amendment 292
- Amendment 293
- Amendment 294
- Amendment 295
- Amendment 296
- Amendment 297
- Amendment 298
- Amendment 299
- Amendment 300
- Amendment 301
- Amendment 302
- Amendment 303
- Amendment 304
- Amendment 305
- Amendment 306
- Amendment 307
- Amendment 308
- Amendment 309
- Amendment 310
- Amendment 311
- Amendment 312
- Amendment 313
- Amendment 314
- Amendment 315
- Amendment 316
- Amendment 317
- Amendment 318
- Amendment 319
- Amendment 320
- Amendment 321
- Amendment 322
- Amendment 323
- Amendment 324
- Amendment 325
- Amendment 326
- Amendment 327
- Amendment 328
- Amendment 329
- Amendment 330
- Amendment 331
- Amendment 332
- Amendment 333
- Amendment 334
- Amendment 335
- Amendment 336
- Amendment 337
- Amendment 338
- Amendment 339
- Amendment 340
- Amendment 341
- Amendment 342
- Amendment 343
- Amendment 344
- Amendment 345
- Amendment 346
- Amendment 347
- Amendment 348
- Amendment 349
- Amendment 350
- Amendment 351
- Amendment 352
- Amendment 353
- Amendment 354
- Amendment 355
- Amendment 356
- Amendment 357
- Amendment 358
- Amendment 359
- Amendment 360
- Amendment 361
- Amendment 362
- Amendment 363
- Amendment 364
- Amendment 365
- Amendment 366
- Amendment 367
- Amendment 368
- Amendment 369
- Amendment 370
- Amendment 371
- Amendment 372
- Amendment 373
- Amendment 374
- Amendment 375
- Amendment 376
- Amendment 377
- Amendment 378
- Amendment 379
- Amendment 380
- Amendment 381
- Amendment 382
- Amendment 383
- Amendment 384
- Amendment 385
- Amendment 386
- Amendment 387
- Amendment 388
- Amendment 389
- Amendment 390
- Amendment 391
- Amendment 392
- Amendment 393
- Amendment 394
- Amendment 395
- Amendment 396
- Amendment 397
- Amendment 398
- Amendment 399
- Amendment 400
- Amendment 401
- Amendment 402
- Amendment 403
- Amendment 404
- Amendment 405
- Amendment 406
- Amendment 407
- Amendment 408
- Amendment 409
- Amendment 410
- Amendment 411
- Amendment 412
- Amendment 413
- Amendment 414
- Amendment 415
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2b. Measures that are not included in a management plan within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, or in a national restoration plan under the Nature Restoration Regulation, shall be presumed to satisfy the additionality requirement and may accordingly be relied upon as project-specific mitigation measures within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2b. The Commission shall, by means of an implementing decision, specify the minimum elements and safeguards to be included in the legal framework referred to in the third subparagraph (2a). |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 6 | deleted |
| Substantial preclusion | |
| In the context of judicial proceedings relating to environmental assessments within the meaning of this Regulation, Member States may preclude arguments from being raised before a court of law where they were not raised during the administrative stage, as long as the competent authority made available the necessary information in due time so that those arguments were known or could have been known and reviewed during the administrative stage leading to the authorisation of the project, without prejudice to the right of access to justice. |
Substantial preclusion restricts access to justice. It is often not possible for a claimant to obtain the necessary scientific assessments and know all possible reasons for which a decision may be problematic. Moreover, as also recognised by the CJEU (C-826/18, para. 58), the assessment of a project may evolve depending on the outcome of the administrative procedure. New relevant information may become available after the end of the administrative stage. The Commission and the CJEU have established that such rule undermines the fundamental right to an effective remedy and violates the EU’s international commitments.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 6 | deleted |
| Substantial preclusion | |
| In the context of judicial proceedings relating to environmental assessments within the meaning of this Regulation, Member States may preclude arguments from being raised before a court of law where they were not raised during the administrative stage, as long as the competent authority made available the necessary information in due time so that those arguments were known or could have been known and reviewed during the administrative stage leading to the authorisation of the project, without prejudice to the right of access to justice. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 6 | deleted |
| Substantial preclusion | |
| In the context of judicial proceedings relating to environmental assessments within the meaning of this Regulation, Member States may preclude arguments from being raised before a court of law where they were not raised during the administrative stage, as long as the competent authority made available the necessary information in due time so that those arguments were known or could have been known and reviewed during the administrative stage leading to the authorisation of the project, without prejudice to the right of access to justice. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| In the context of judicial proceedings relating to environmental assessments within the meaning of this Regulation, Member States may preclude arguments from being raised before a court of law where they were not raised during the administrative stage, as long as the competent authority made available the necessary information in due time so that those arguments were known or could have been known and reviewed during the administrative stage leading to the authorisation of the project, without prejudice to the right of access to justice. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| In the context of judicial proceedings relating to environmental assessments within the meaning of this Regulation, Member States may preclude arguments from being raised before a court of law where they were not raised during the administrative stage, as long as the competent authority made available the necessary information in due time so that those arguments were known or could have been known and reviewed during the administrative stage leading to the authorisation of the project, without prejudice to the right of access to justice. | deleted |
Preclusion rules would restrict the consideration, in appeals, of matters on the basis of how an interested party has acted during the environmental assessment procedure are profoundly problematic. The function of the EIA procedure is not to serve as a forum for the definitive presentation and recording of legally binding claims, but rather to collect and assess information on impacts and to facilitate participation.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| In the context of judicial proceedings relating to environmental assessments within the meaning of this Regulation, Member States may preclude arguments from being raised before a court of law where they were not raised during the administrative stage, as long as the competent authority made available the necessary information in due time so that those arguments were known or could have been known and reviewed during the administrative stage leading to the authorisation of the project, without prejudice to the right of access to justice. | In the context of judicial proceedings relating to environmental assessments within the meaning of this Regulation, Member States may preclude arguments of a procedural and formal nature from being raised before a court of law where they were not raised during the administrative stage, provided that: |
| a) the information necessary to identify such arguments had been made publicly available by the competent authority in a complete, timely and accessible manner, including in digital format, sufficiently in advance of the closure of the public consultation phase; | |
| b) the introduction and application of such preclusion is permitted under the Member State's national law; | |
| c) the administrative stage offered a genuine and effective opportunity for participation to the members of the public concerned, including those residing in other Member States for projects with transboundary effects, in accordance with Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention. | |
| 1a. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply: | |
| a) to arguments relating to the substantive assessment of environmental impacts, including those concerning the completeness, adequacy and scientific currency of the environmental assessment report; | |
| b) to arguments arising after the closure of the administrative procedure on the basis of new scientific evidence, monitoring data not available at the time of the decision, or variations in environmental conditions documented after the granting of the authorisation; | |
| c) to any argument relating to a failure to assess significant transboundary environmental effects, where the public in the affected Member State or third country was not properly notified or given an effective opportunity to participate in accordance with the Espoo Convention; | |
| d) to cases in which the environmental assessment was conducted in breach of the provisions of this Regulation or of the Directives referred to in Article 1. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| In the context of judicial proceedings relating to environmental assessments within the meaning of this Regulation, Member States may preclude arguments from being raised before a court of law where they were not raised during the administrative stage, as long as the competent authority made available the necessary information in due time so that those arguments were known or could have been known and reviewed during the administrative stage leading to the authorisation of the project, without prejudice to the right of access to justice. | In the context of judicial proceedings relating to permit-granting procedures within the meaning of this Regulation and of Directive 2010/75/EU, Member States may preclude arguments from being raised before a court of law where they were not raised during the administrative stage as long as the competent authority made available the necessary information in due time so that those arguments were known or could have been known and reviewed during the administrative stage leading to the authorisation of the project. |
| The Commission shall, within 12 months of the entry into force of this Regulation, submit a proposal to amend Article 25(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU to include a corresponding substantial preclusion provision for judicial proceedings relating to IED permits. |
Limiting preclusion to environmental assessments is inconsistent: the same project may face EA and IED permit proceedings in parallel, with preclusion applying to one but not the other. This incentivises parties to reserve arguments for the IED track. Extending to all permit-granting procedures and aligning with IED Art. 25(1) ensures consistency and prevents strategic litigation routing.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| In the context of judicial proceedings relating to environmental assessments within the meaning of this Regulation, Member States may preclude arguments from being raised before a court of law where they were not raised during the administrative stage, as long as the competent authority made available the necessary information in due time so that those arguments were known or could have been known and reviewed during the administrative stage leading to the authorisation of the project, without prejudice to the right of access to justice. | In the context of judicial proceedings relating to environmental assessments within the meaning of this Regulation, Member States may preclude arguments from being raised before a court of law where they were not raised during the administrative stage, as long as the competent authority made available the necessary information in due time so that those arguments were known or could have been known and reviewed during the administrative stage leading to the authorisation of the project, without prejudice to the right of access to justice and provided that such preclusion does not apply to arguments based on new evidence, new circumstances, or information which could not reasonably have been known or identified during the administrative stage. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| In the context of judicial proceedings relating to environmental assessments within the meaning of this Regulation, Member States may preclude arguments from being raised before a court of law where they were not raised during the administrative stage, as long as the competent authority made available the necessary information in due time so that those arguments were known or could have been known and reviewed during the administrative stage leading to the authorisation of the project, without prejudice to the right of access to justice. | In the context of judicial proceedings relating to environmental assessments within the meaning of this Regulation, Member States shall preclude arguments from being raised before a court of law where they were not raised during the administrative stage, as long as the competent authority made available the necessary information in due time so that those arguments were known or could have been known and reviewed during the administrative stage leading to the authorisation of the project, without prejudice to the right of access to justice. |
To foster harmonized implementation across Member States and to speed up permitting procedures, substantial preclusion should be made mandatory.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1a. Member States shall ensure that any measure adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 is compatible with the obligations arising from the Aarhus Convention and in particular with the right of access to justice guaranteed by Article 9(2) and (3) thereof, as well as with the general principles of Union law on effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1b. Substantive preclusion as permitted under paragraph 1 shall not operate to preclude judicial review of the lawfulness of the decision-making process leading to the determination of imperative reasons of overriding public interest, nor of the application by Member States of higher standards of environmental protection than those required by Union law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) for projects subject to screening, the competent authorities carry out that screening within a period of maximum 60 days from the date that the developer has submitted all information required; for changes or extensions of projects referred to in Article 5 of this Regulation, that timeline shall be a maximum of 45 days; | (a) for projects subject to screening, the competent authorities carry out that screening within a period of maximum 90 days from the date that the developer has submitted all clearly pre-defined and communicated pieces of information required; for changes or extensions of projects referred to in Article 5 of this Regulation, a shorter timeline shall be pre-defined and communicated; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) for projects subject to an environmental assessment, the competent authority issues an opinion on the scope and level of detail of the information to be included in an environmental assessment report within a period of maximum 30 days from the date on which the developer has submitted its request for an opinion; | (b) for projects subject to an environmental assessment, the competent authority issues an opinion on the scope and level of detail of the information to be included in an environmental assessment report within a pre-defined and communicated period of time from the date on which the developer has submitted its request for an opinion; the competent authority shall pre-define and communicate the most common scope and level of detail of the information required from project developers, depending on the type of project and situation; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) for projects subject to an environmental assessment, the competent authority issues an opinion on the scope and level of detail of the information to be included in an environmental assessment report within a period of maximum 30 days from the date on which the developer has submitted its request for an opinion; | (b) for projects subject to an environmental assessment, provided that the developer submitted all necessary information, the competent authority issues an opinion on the scope and level of detail of the information to be included in an environmental assessment report within a period of maximum 30 days from the date on which the developer has submitted its request for an opinion; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) for projects subject to an environmental assessment, the competent authority issues an opinion on the scope and level of detail of the information to be included in an environmental assessment report within a period of maximum 30 days from the date on which the developer has submitted its request for an opinion; | (b) for projects subject to an environmental assessment, the competent authority issues an opinion on the scope and level of detail of the information to be included in an environmental assessment report within a period of maximum 30 days from the date on which the developer has submitted its request for an opinion, stating the following: |
This would enhance predictability without creating a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework which, in certain cases, could result in dysfunctional procedures.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ba) for projects likely to have significant effects on: | |
| (i) Natura 2000 sites or other protected areas; | |
| (ii) species listed as priority under Annex II of Directive 92/43/EEC; | |
| (iii) water bodies; | |
| (iv) cumulative impacts with existing or approved projects in the same area; the competent authority may extend the scoping opinion deadline by an additional 30 days to ensure adequate consultation with relevant authorities and assessment of the scope required for environmental assessment. The competent authority shall notify the developer of the extension without delay. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ba) the timeline for the full environmental assessment, based on a national standard from earlier similar processes, including deadlines for the process such as timeframes for consulting the public concerned and when a reasoned conclusion can be expected from the competent authority. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ba) For the purposes of screening under Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC, nitrogen depo sition not exceeding 1% of the critical load for the habitat type concerned ('small numbers') may be presumed non-significant, unless objective site-specific evidence indicates otherwise.” |
rticle 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC requires an appropriate assessment of any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, but the directive does not define "significant". The Court of Justice has held that the term must be given content on the basis of objective scientific data (C-127/02, Waddenzee), and that Union law admits quantitative lower limits where these rest on a scientific basis (the ORNIS "small numbers" criterion; C-344/03, Commission v Finland). This provision gives the significance criterion such content for nitrogen deposition: a contribution at or below 1% of the critical load for the habitat type concerned is presumed not to be significant. It does not create an exception to the Article 6(3) obligation — the screening duty is preserved in full — but specifies the threshold at which that obligation is engaged, consistent with C-538/09 (Commission v Belgium) and Joined Cases C-293/17 and C-294/17 (PAS), §§114–115. The presumption is rebuttable: where objective site-specific evidence, including cumulative effects in combination with other plans or projects, indicates a likely significant effect, the appropriate assessment proceeds. The level of protection is therefore maintained, while screening becomes more predictable, less burdensome and more uniform across Member States, in line with the simplification objectives of the proposal
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (bb) the scope and level of detail of the information to be included in the environmental assessment report. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) the time-frames for consulting the public concerned on the environmental report referred to point (b) is between 30 and 90 days; | deleted |
Rather than imposing strict deadlines, the competent authority should communicate a project-specific timeline at the outset of the scoping phase, calibrated against national standards derived from similar projects. This approach builds on actual administrative experience, creates accountability specific to each project, and respects the principle of subsidiarity. This would enhance predictability without creating a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework which, in certain cases, could result in dysfunctional procedures.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) the time-frames for consulting the public concerned on the environmental report referred to point (b) is between 30 and 90 days; | (c) the time-frames for consulting the public concerned on the environmental report referred to point (b) is between 30 and 90 days, and shall be counted within the maximum period referred to in the first subparagraph. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) the time-frames for consulting the public concerned on the environmental report referred to point (b) is between 30 and 90 days; | (c) the time-frames for consulting the public concerned on the environmental report referred to point (b) is between 60 and 90 days; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (d) within 30 days following the completion of the respective consultations under Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU, the competent authority acknowledges the completeness of the information provided by the developer which is necessary to take an informed decision on the environmental effects of the project. This information shall include the necessary information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU including, where relevant, specific assessments required under other Union legislation. | deleted |
| If, before the end of the 30 days period, the competent authority considers that it does not have all necessary information to make the informed decision, the developer shall submit that information within a reasonable timeframe. Following the acknowledgment of completeness referred to in this point, the developer shall not be asked to provide any new information unless duly justified. |
This would enhance predictability without creating a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework which, in certain cases, could result in dysfunctional procedures.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| within 30 days following the completion of the respective consultations under Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU, the competent authority acknowledges the completeness of the information provided by the developer which is necessary to take an informed decision on the environmental effects of the project. This information shall include the necessary information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU including, where relevant, specific assessments required under other Union legislation. | within 30 days following the completion of the respective consultations under Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU, the competent authority acknowledges the completeness of the information provided by the developer which is necessary to take an informed decision on the environmental effects of the project. This information shall include the necessary information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU including, where relevant, specific assessments required under other Union legislation. |
| Where, before acknowledging completeness, the competent authority considers that additional information is necessary, it shall identify all such information in a single, consolidated request. | |
| A request for new information after acknowledgment of completeness shall only be duly justified where the competent authority demonstrates that (a) the new information relates to material facts that were not available at the time of the acknowledgment, and (b) the absence of such information would prevent the competent authority from reaching a reasoned conclusion. |
The amendment introduces a one-shot principle for information requests. Competent authorities should identify missing information in a single consolidated request and should not reopen completeness once acknowledged, except where genuinely new and necessary information is required.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (d) within 30 days following the completion of the respective consultations under Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU, the competent authority acknowledges the completeness of the information provided by the developer which is necessary to take an informed decision on the environmental effects of the project. This information shall include the necessary information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU including, where relevant, specific assessments required under other Union legislation. | (d) within a pre-defined and communicated number of days following the completion of the respective consultations under Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU, the competent authority acknowledges the completeness of the information provided by the developer which is necessary to take an informed decision on the environmental effects of the project. This information shall include the necessary information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU including, where relevant, specific assessments required under other Union legislation. The competent authority shall pre-define and communicate details on the information and form in which the information shall be provided. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (d) within 30 days following the completion of the respective consultations under Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU, the competent authority acknowledges the completeness of the information provided by the developer which is necessary to take an informed decision on the environmental effects of the project. This information shall include the necessary information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU including, where relevant, specific assessments required under other Union legislation. | (d) within 30 days following the completion of the respective consultations under Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU, the competent authority acknowledges the completeness of the information provided by the developer which is necessary to take an informed decision on the environmental effects of the project. This information shall include the necessary information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Directive 2011/92/EU including, where relevant, specific assessments required under other Union legislation including where new scientific evidence, environmental information or changes in project circumstances arise. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| If, before the end of the 30 days period, the competent authority considers that it does not have all necessary information to make the informed decision, the developer shall submit that information within a reasonable timeframe. Following the acknowledgment of completeness referred to in this point, the developer shall not be asked to provide any new information unless duly justified. | If, before the end of the pre-defined and communicated period, the competent authority considers that it does not have all necessary information to make the informed decision, it shall communicate all missing information to the developer. The developer shall then submit that missing information within a reasonable timeframe. After that, the competent authority may only ask for additional information whose necessity became apparent after the developer handed in the missing information. Following the acknowledgment of completeness referred to in this point, the developer shall not be asked to provide any new information unless duly justified, in accordance with a pre-defined and communicated list of justifications. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (e) the competent authority issues a reasoned conclusion on the environmental assessment of the project within a maximum of 90 days following the acknowledgement of completeness referred to in point (d). | deleted |
This would enhance predictability without creating a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework which, in certain cases, could result in dysfunctional procedures.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (e) the competent authority issues a reasoned conclusion on the environmental assessment of the project within a maximum of 90 days following the acknowledgement of completeness referred to in point (d). | (e) the competent authority issues a reasoned conclusion on the environmental assessment of the project within of 90 days of receiving all necessary information pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that Directive and after completing the relevant consultations referred to in Articles 6 and 7. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (e) the competent authority issues a reasoned conclusion on the environmental assessment of the project within a maximum of 90 days following the acknowledgement of completeness referred to in point (d). | (e) the competent authority issues a reasoned conclusion on the environmental assessment of the project within a maximum pre-defined and communicated number of days following the acknowledgement of completeness referred to in point (d). |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The deadlines set out in this paragraph shall also apply in case of joint or coordinated procedures where the assessment of the environmental effects of a project under Directive 2011/92/EU is combined with assessments under Directives 92/43/EEC, 2000/60/EC or 2009/147/EC. | Longer, pre-defined and communicated deadlines may apply in case of joint or coordinated procedures where the assessment of the environmental effects of a project under Directive 2011/92/EU is combined with assessments under Directives 92/43/EEC, 2000/60/EC or 2009/147/EC. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The deadlines set out in this paragraph shall also apply in case of joint or coordinated procedures where the assessment of the environmental effects of a project under Directive 2011/92/EU is combined with assessments under Directives 92/43/EEC, 2000/60/EC or 2009/147/EC. | The deadlines set out in this paragraph shall also apply in case of joint procedures where the assessment of the environmental effects of a project under Directive 2011/92/EU is combined with assessments under Directives 92/43/EEC, 2000/60/EC or 2009/147/EC. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| In exceptional cases, where the nature, complexity, location or size of the proposed project so require, the competent authority may extend the deadlines set out in this paragraph by a period of maximum 30 days. In that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing without delay of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when the respective administrative act is expected. | In exceptional cases, where the nature, complexity, location or size of the proposed project so require, the competent authority may extend the deadlines set out in this paragraph by a period of maximum 30 days. In that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing without delay of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when the respective administrative act is expected. |
| Projects requiring assessments under Directives 92/43/EEC, 2000/60/EC and 2009/147/EC may be subject to longer timelines where necessary to ensure compliance with Union environmental law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| In exceptional cases, where the nature, complexity, location or size of the proposed project so require, the competent authority may extend the deadlines set out in this paragraph by a period of maximum 30 days. In that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing without delay of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when the respective administrative act is expected. | In exceptional cases, for instance where the nature, complexity, location or size of the proposed project so require, the competent authority may extend the deadlines by a pre-defined and communicated maximum number of days. In that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing without delay of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when the respective administrative act is expected. The competent authority shall pre-define and communicate a list of exceptional cases and reasons that may justify the extension of the date. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| In exceptional cases, where the nature, complexity, location or size of the proposed project so require, the competent authority may extend the deadlines set out in this paragraph by a period of maximum 30 days. In that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing without delay of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when the respective administrative act is expected. | In exceptional cases, where the nature, complexity, location or size of the proposed project so require, the competent authority may extend up to two times the deadlines set out in this paragraph by a period of maximum 30 days. In that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing without delay of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when the respective administrative act is expected. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1a. Where the execution of a strategic project is directly dependent on related infrastructure, including electricity, gas, hydrogen, water, digital, logistical or storage connections, Member States shall ensure that the screening and environmental assessment procedures relating to that infrastructure are coordinated with the procedures for the main project and handled within a time frame compatible with the project’s actual execution. |
A strategic project may become stuck if the infrastructure necessary for it to operate is not assessed within a compatible time frame. Energy, water, digital, logistical and storage connections must therefore be coordinated with the main project.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) the competent authorities carry out the screening under Article 3(5) of that Directive and publish its results within a period of 90 days; | (a) the competent authorities carry out the screening under Article 3(5) of that Directive and publish its results within a period of 90 days, counting from the date when the necessary information required under that Directive has been provided to them; |
Screening has to be done before the start of the planning process and therefore the start of the planning process cannot be seen as the starting point of the time limit in Article 7(2)(a). We see that the reference to the start date of relevant planning process should therefore be deleted.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) the competent authorities carry out the screening under Article 3(5) of that Directive and publish its results within a period of 90 days; | (a) the competent authorities carry out the screening under Article 3(5) of that Directive and publish its results within a pre-defined and communicated period of time; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) the competent authorities carry out the scoping under Article 5(3) of that Directive and publish its results within 40 days; | (b) the competent authorities carry out the scoping under Article 5(3) of that Directive and publish its results within a period of 60 days, counting from the date when the necessary information required under that Directive has been provided to them; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) the competent authorities carry out the scoping under Article 5(3) of that Directive and publish its results within 40 days; | (b) the competent authorities carry out the scoping under Article 5(3) of that Directive and publish its results within a pre-defined and communicated number of days; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) the time-frames for consulting the public concerned on the environmental report referred to in Article 5 of that Directive is between 30 and 60 days; | (c) The public concerned shall be given early and effective opportunities to participate in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 3(1) of that Directive and shall, for that purpose, be entitled to express comments and opinions when all options are open to the competent authority or authorities before the adoption of the plan or programme. The time-frames for consulting the public concerned on the environmental report referred to in Article 5 of that Directive is between 30 and 90 days; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (d) the competent authorities conclude and publish the environmental report required under Article 5(1) of that Directive within 7 months from the day when the necessary information required under that Directive has been provided to them, and the relevant consultations under that Directive have been completed. | (d) the competent authorities conclude and publish the environmental report required under Article 5(1) of that Directive within a pre-defined and communicated period of time from the day when the necessary information required under that Directive has been provided to them, and the relevant consultations under that Directive have been completed. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The deadlines set out in this paragraph shall also apply in case of joint or coordinated procedures where the assessment of the environmental effects of a plan or programme as defined under Directive 2001/42/EC is combined with assessments under Directives 92/43/EEC, 2000/60/EC or 2009/147/EC. | Longer, pre-defined and communicated deadlines may apply in case of joint or coordinated procedures where the assessment of the environmental effects of a plan or programme as defined under Directive 2001/42/EC is combined with assessments under Directives 92/43/EEC, 2000/60/EC or 2009/147/EC. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The deadlines set out in this paragraph shall also apply in case of joint or coordinated procedures where the assessment of the environmental effects of a plan or programme as defined under Directive 2001/42/EC is combined with assessments under Directives 92/43/EEC, 2000/60/EC or 2009/147/EC. | The deadlines set out in this paragraph shall also apply in case of joint procedures where the assessment of the environmental effects of a plan or programme as defined under Directive 2001/42/EC is combined with assessments under Directives 92/43/EEC, 2000/60/EC or 2009/147/EC. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| In exceptional cases, where the nature, complexity, location or size of the proposed plan or programme so require, the competent authority may extend the timelines under the first subparagraph by further maximum 30 days. In that event, the competent authority shall inform the authority developing the plan or programme in writing without delay of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when the respective administrative act is expected. | In exceptional cases, for instance where the nature, complexity, location or size of the proposed plan or programme so require, the competent authority may extend the timelines under the first subparagraph by a pre-defined and communicated number of days. In that event, the competent authority shall inform the authority developing the plan or programme in writing without delay of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when the respective administrative act is expected. The competent authority shall pre-define and communicate a list of exceptional cases and reasons that may justify the extension of the date. |
Jeannette Baljeu, Andreas Glück, Olivier Chastel, Christine Singer, Engin Eroglu, Ana Vasconcelos, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Asger Christensen
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. For the purposes of screening under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC, nitrogen deposition attributable to a plan, programme or project not exceeding 1% of the critical load for the habitat type concerned shall be presumed not likely to have a significant effect with regard to that deposition, unless objective site-specific information, including regarding cumulative effects, indicates otherwise. |
This amendment introduces a rebuttable significance threshold for small amounts of nitrogen deposition at screening stage under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. It improves legal certainty and predictability by clarifying that nitrogen deposition below 1% of the critical load may be presumed non-significant, while preserving the possibility to require further assessment where objective site-specific information, including cumulative effects, indicates likely significant effects. The amendment is therefore not a general exemption from the appropriate assessment obligation, but a targeted interpretation of the significance criterion.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. In cases where a plan, programme or project is subject to a joint or coordinated procedure for assessment under both Directive 2001/42/EC and Directive 2011/92/EU, the deadlines set out in paragraph 1 shall apply. | 3. In cases where a plan, programme or project is subject to a joint or coordinated procedure for assessment under both Directive 2001/42/EC and Directive 2011/92/EU, longer, pre-defined and communicated deadlines may apply. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. In cases where a plan, programme or project is subject to a joint or coordinated procedure for assessment under both Directive 2001/42/EC and Directive 2011/92/EU, the deadlines set out in paragraph 1 shall apply. | 3. In cases where a plan, programme or project is subject to a joint procedure for assessment under both Directive 2001/42/EC and Directive 2011/92/EU, the deadlines set out in paragraph 1 shall apply. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Where other Union legislation establishes shorter timelines than the ones set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, those shorter deadlines shall apply. | Where other Union legislation establishes shorter timelines than the ones established by competent authorities in compliance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, those shorter deadlines shall apply. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Where other EU legislation establishes timelines for the overall permit granting process that are shorter than the combination of the timelines of the different steps of the environmental assessment procedure under paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article, the shorter timeline for the overall permit granting process applies. | Where other EU legislation establishes timelines for the overall permit granting process that are shorter than the combination of the timelines of the different steps of the environmental assessment procedure under paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article, the shorter timeline for the overall permit granting process applies. |
| Where a project falls within the scope of two or more sectoral Union legislative acts with different EA timelines, the shorter timeline shall apply for each corresponding step of the environmental assessment procedure. The Permitting Single Point of Contact shall inform the developer at the outset which timeline applies to each step. The competent authority shall inform the developer at the outset of the procedure which timeline applies to each step. |
The current provision establishes a minimum standard rather than an upper limit but does not address what happens when a project triggers multiple sectoral regimes with different Environment Assessment deadlines. The amendment provides clarity.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Where other EU legislation establishes timelines for the overall permit granting process that are shorter than the combination of the timelines of the different steps of the environmental assessment procedure under paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article, the shorter timeline for the overall permit granting process applies. | Where other EU legislation establishes timelines for the overall permit granting process that are shorter than the combination of the timelines of the different steps of the environmental assessment procedure established by competent authorities in compliance with paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article, the shorter timeline for the overall permit granting process applies. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The deadlines set out in this Article, with the exception of the ones set out in paragraph 1, point (c), and paragraph 2, point (c), shall be without prejudice to any shorter time limits set by Member States, to obligations arising from Union and international law, and to the rights of natural and legal persons to access administrative or judicial procedures to review the legality of the decisions, acts or failure to act of the competent authorities. | 5. The deadlines set out in this Article, with the exception of the ones set out in paragraph 1, point (c), and paragraph 2, point (c), shall be without prejudice to any shorter time limits set by Member States, provided such limits do not compromise the quality, completeness or effectiveness of the assessment, to obligations arising from Union and international law, and to the rights of natural and legal persons to access administrative or judicial procedures to review the legality of the decisions, acts or failure to act of the competent authorities. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The deadlines set out in this Article, with the exception of the ones set out in paragraph 1, point (c), and paragraph 2, point (c), shall be without prejudice to any shorter time limits set by Member States, to obligations arising from Union and international law, and to the rights of natural and legal persons to access administrative or judicial procedures to review the legality of the decisions, acts or failure to act of the competent authorities. | 5. The deadlines set out in this Article, with the exception of the ones set out in paragraph 1, point (c), and paragraph 2, point (c), shall be without prejudice to any shorter time limits set by Member States where this does not compromise the quality, completeness or effectiveness of the assessment, to obligations arising from Union and international law, and to the rights of natural and legal persons to access administrative or judicial procedures to review the legality of the decisions, acts or failure to act of the competent authorities. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The deadlines set out in this Article, with the exception of the ones set out in paragraph 1, point (c), and paragraph 2, point (c), shall be without prejudice to any shorter time limits set by Member States, to obligations arising from Union and international law, and to the rights of natural and legal persons to access administrative or judicial procedures to review the legality of the decisions, acts or failure to act of the competent authorities. | 5. The deadlines set out in this Article, with the exception of the ones set out in paragraph 1, point (c), and paragraph 2, point (c), may not compromise the quality of the assessments and shall be without prejudice to any shorter time limits set by Member States, to obligations arising from Union and international law, and to the rights of natural and legal persons to access administrative or judicial procedures to review the legality of the decisions, acts or failure to act of the competent authorities. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The deadlines set out in this Article, with the exception of the ones set out in paragraph 1, point (c), and paragraph 2, point (c), shall be without prejudice to any shorter time limits set by Member States, to obligations arising from Union and international law, and to the rights of natural and legal persons to access administrative or judicial procedures to review the legality of the decisions, acts or failure to act of the competent authorities. | 5. The deadlines set out by competent authorities in compliance with this Article, with the exception of the ones set out in paragraph 1, point (c), and paragraph 2, point (c), shall be without prejudice to obligations arising from Union and international law, and to the rights of natural and legal persons to access administrative or judicial procedures to review the legality of the decisions, acts or failure to act of the competent authorities. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5a. Member States shall ensure that, where a screening or environmental assessment procedure is carried out under this Regulation, the project developer is provided, through the environmental single point of contact, with a consolidated timetable indicating the main procedural steps, consultation periods, expected information requests and expected dates for opinions or decisions. The consolidated timetable shall be updated where necessary. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5a. Member States shall ensure sufficient staffing and expertise to comply with the deadlines established in this Article. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 8 | deleted |
| Protected species | |
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | |
| 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. Member States shall ensure that those measures are applied and their effectiveness is monitored and that, in the light of the information gathered, further measures are taken as required to ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that: |
| a) the species concerned are in a favourable conservation status in their natural range according to the most recent reports submitted by the Member State pursuant to Article 17 of Directive 92/43/EEC or Article 12 of Directive 2009/147/EC; | |
| b) appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures have been adopted for the plan or project, based on the best available technologies and the latest scientific knowledge, with a view to avoiding killings and preventing disturbance to the greatest extent possible; | |
| c) the developer has demonstrated, through a mitigation hierarchy, that alternatives or modifications that would avoid or further reduce killing or disturbance have been considered and, where feasible and proportionate, adopted; | |
| d) the competent authority has assessed and documented that the proposed mitigation measures ensure that the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range is preserved, taking into account cumulative effects arising from the interaction of the plan or project with other existing or approved plans, projects and activities affecting the same species or populations. | |
| The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to species whose conservation status is classified as unfavourable in the reports referred to in point (a), nor shall they prejudice the application of the derogation regime provided for in Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC and Article 9 of Directive 2009/147/EC. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC – or disturbance or damage to their nests or individual eggs – or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species – or disturbance or damage to their nests or individual eggs – shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing – or disturbance or damage to their nests or individual eggs – and to prevent disturbance. |
| In the event that the implementation of plans or the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects should result in the disturbance or destruction of breeding sites or resting places of species covered by the Habitats Directive, this shall not constitute a breach of Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive provided that the plan or project provides for appropriate and proportionate compensatory measures which may be recognised by certification bodies or approved by administrative authorities, and takes into account best practice and available technologies to prevent such damage and destruction. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, or the destruction of or damage to their nests or eggs, such killing or disturbance, destruction or damage of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures that can be recognised by way of certification or approved by the administrative authorities and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance of animals and prevent the destruction of or damage to their nests or eggs. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | 1. When the implementation of plans, with the exception of forest management plan or an equivalent instrument, or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the species is in favourable conservation status and provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. |
State forestry association wrote in their written input in relation to nature directives that they found that what is considered a deliberate destruction of bird nests during harvesting operations is ´´a major threat for everyday forestry.´´ ..Protection of nesting birds is on the contrary one, of many, building block, which should be fulfilled in order for forestry to be considered sustainable. Forest management plans are plans prepared for number of years (e.g. 10) and the respect for nesting seasons should remain the basic respect of forest industry towards the forest ecosystems and their fauna. The text should be therefore clarified that the paragraph does not apply to forest management plans.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the incidental killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, and where the competent authority has granted a derogation under Article 9 of Directive 2009/147/EC or Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC, the conditions of that derogation shall include requirements that all necessary mitigation measures are applied and that: |
| (a) they reflect the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance; | |
| (b) their effectiveness is monitored; | |
| (c) corrective measures are taken immediately where monitoring reveals they are insufficient to achieve the objectives of the derogation. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures that can be recognized by certification entities or approved by administrative authorities and considering the best practices and available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | 1. 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing, disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, or to the destruction or damage to their nests or eggs, such killing or, disturbance, destruction or damage of protected species or their nests or eggs shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the species is in favourable conservation status and provided that plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures, as defined by means of certification or authorisation by the competent authorities, and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best technologies applicable to the specific project and geographical conditions to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, refurbishment, operation, maintenance or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering technically recognised measures and sector-specific best practices to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. |
The current wording may be difficult to apply consistently across sectors, as many projects covered by this Regulation are not subject to established BAT reference documents. The proposed wording introduces a practical and technology-neutral standard, improving legal certainty and ensuring that Article 8 can be applied effectively across all sectors.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. | 1. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the occasional killing or disturbance of birds protected under Directive 2009/147/EC or other species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such killing or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered to be deliberate within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1a. Without prejudice to the objectives of Directive 2009/147/EC and Directive 92/43/EEC, Member States may authorise, in relation to protected species, activities that would otherwise fall within the prohibitions laid down in Article 5, points (a) to (d), of Directive 2009/147/EC or Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, where the species concerned is not endangered and the competent authority can rely on sufficiently robust, recent and scientifically sound information on its conservation status, population size and population trends. For that purpose, Member States shall ensure that the relevant data on the conservation status, population size and population trends of the species concerned are gathered, kept available and updated at regular intervals, so as to allow a reliable assessment of the potential effects on that species. Member States shall determine, at national level, the measures to be taken by the operator in order to avoid or reduce adverse effects on the species concerned and to maintain or improve its conservation status. Such measures may include, where appropriate, standardised mitigation measures, compensatory measures, contributions to species protection or recovery programmes, or other equivalent measures addressing the cumulative impact of projects on the species concerned. |
The objective of this amendment is to make species protection more predictable, proportionate and evidence-based. Protection rules must safeguard biodiversity effectively, but they should not lead to disproportionate delays for infrastructure that is indispensable for electrification, grid expansion and the wider energy transition. For that reason, competent authorities should be able to rely on a population-based assessment where sufficient and up-to-date scientific data are available. Where a project does not endanger the relevant population and where appropriate mitigation or conservation measures are ensured, incidental impacts on individual specimens should not, in themselves, be treated as preventing authorisation.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1a. If it has been established that the implementation of the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the population of the species concerned, in particular because that population is in a favourable conservation status or its conservation status will not be adversely affected by the project, then the activities referred to in paragraph 1 will not be delayed or suspended. The Commission shall make data and maps available via an information portal, which the competent regional authorities may use to take appropriate decisions regarding cross-border populations. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1a. When the implementation of plans or when the construction, operation or decommissioning of projects result in the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places of species protected under Directive 92/43/EEC, such deterioration or destruction shall not infringe Article 12(1)(d) of that directive, provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and takes account of the best available technologies to avoid such deterioration or destruction. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1a. Paragraph 1 shall not apply when the competent authority, upon evaluating any potential cumulative effects arising from the current project in combination with other existing and/or approved plans or projects, determines that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. Member States shall ensure that those measures are applied and their effectiveness is monitored and that, in the light of the information gathered, further measures are taken as required to ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. Member States shall ensure that those measures are applied and their effectiveness is monitored and that, in the light of the information gathered, further measures are taken as required to ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned. | 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are sufficient, the competent authority shall analyse whether they contribute to the maintenance of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. Member States shall ensure that those measures are applied and their effectiveness is monitored and that, in the light of the information gathered, further measures are taken as required to ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned. | 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range is preserved, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. Member States shall ensure that the effectiveness of the mitigation measures is monitored at least annually on the basis of measurable indicators defined in the authorisation decision. Where the monitoring reveals significant negative effects on the population of the species concerned, the competent authority shall without delay take the necessary corrective measures, including requiring additional mitigation measures or operational modifications or the temporary suspension of the activities responsible for the identified impact. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. Member States shall ensure that those measures are applied and their effectiveness is monitored and that, in the light of the information gathered, further measures are taken as required to ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned. | 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. |
This amendment preserves the population-level test while avoiding additional project-specific monitoring obligations that could create administrative costs and uncertainty. The Birds and Habitats Directives already provide for monitoring at species and habitat level; operators should be able to rely on permit conditions once set.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. Member States shall ensure that those measures are applied and their effectiveness is monitored and that, in the light of the information gathered, further measures are taken as required to ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned. | 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. Member States shall ensure that those measures are applied and their effectiveness is monitored and that, in the light of the information gathered, further measures are taken as required to ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned. | 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. Member States shall ensure that those measures are applied and their effectiveness is monitored and that, in the light of the information gathered, further measures are taken as required to ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned. |
| Notwithstanding Article 1, this Article shall apply to projects within the meaning of Directive 2011/92/EU, even if they are not subject to an environmental impact assessment or a preliminary assessment under that Directive. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. Member States shall ensure that those measures are applied and their effectiveness is monitored and that, in the light of the information gathered, further measures are taken as required to ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned. | 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. Mitigation measures may also be carried out during or almost concurrently with the implementation of projects referred to in paragraph 1. Member States shall ensure that those measures are applied and their effectiveness is monitored and that, in the light of the information gathered, further measures are taken as required to ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. Member States shall ensure that those measures are applied and their effectiveness is monitored and that, in the light of the information gathered, further measures are taken as required to ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the population of the species concerned. | 2. When assessing whether those mitigation measures are appropriate and proportionate to comply with Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall take into account whether they ensure that adverse impacts on the local population of the species concerned is avoided, despite the possible existence of negative impacts on individual specimens of those species. Member States shall ensure that those measures are applied and their effectiveness is continuously monitored in line with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC and that, in the light of the information gathered, further measures are taken as required without undue delay to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on the local population of the species concerned |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. To facilitate compliance with the protection regime laid out in Directive 2009/147/EC and Directive 92/43/EC, Member States shall: | |
| (a) communicate in a clear way the rules and practices prescribed to operators, including through awareness-raising campaigns, targeting in particular, economic operators in sectors that are likely to impact protected species, and tailored to the life cycle of the particular species, taking into account their breeding season, feeding habitats, migration pathways, resting or nesting grounds; | |
| (b) communicate in a clear way about the presence of the species, and the available or prescribed protection measures to the concerned land and sea users and the wider public; | |
| (c) take preventive measures to complement preventive measures to be taken by operators. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to incidental acts covered by Article 5(b) of Directive 2009/147/EC, Article 12(1)(c) of Directive 92/43/EEC and Article 13 of Directive 92/43/EEC, where appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures are adopted and significant adverse impacts on the population or conservation status of the species concerned are avoided. |
Article 8 should also address nests, eggs and protected plants, which create similar permitting uncertainty. Applying the same population or conservation-status logic improves predictability while maintaining protection where significant impacts occur.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. When assessing whether other satisfactory solutions exist for the purposes of Article 9 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC, the competent authority shall ensure that such alternatives are genuinely feasible and comparable, taking due account of the specific objectives, characteristics and operational requirements of the activity concerned. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. When assessing whether there are any other suitable solutions for compliance with Article 9 of the Birds Directive and Article 16 of the Habitats Directive, the competent authority shall ensure that these alternatives are in fact comparable in terms of the specific objectives, characteristics and operating conditions of the given activity. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. By way of derogation from Article 1, this Article shall apply to the projects referred to in Article 1 of Directive 2011/92/EU, including where the project is not subject to an environmental assessment or screening pursuant to this Directive. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2b. An alternative shall not be considered satisfactory where it fails to take due account of the regional context, established management frameworks and the specific characteristics of a controlled practice, provided that such practice is implemented in accordance with Union environmental legislation and does not compromise the achievement of the conservation objectives applicable to the species concerned. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2b. The Commission shall assist Member States by: | |
| (a) facilitating the use of reliable sensitivity maps for biodiversity and nature conservation across the Union; | |
| (b) providing guidance on the integration, both in spatial planning and in project development, of practices that have positive effects on the conservation status of local natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2b. An alternative shall be considered unsuitable if it fails to take into account the regional context and the management framework of a controlled activity that does not have a significant adverse impact on the conservation status of the species in question. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2c. Member States may choose to ignore a deterioration in the conservation status of the populations of a species if the project developer pays a specific amount into a state-run species conservation fund set up for that purpose, and the funds paid in are managed on a site-specific and ringfenced basis for measures to safeguard the conservation status of affected species listed in Annex IV to Directive 92/43/EEC and of European bird species under Directive 2009/147/EC. The funds paid in shall be used primarily for measures that combine high ecological effectiveness with the lowest possible additional land use. The effectiveness of the use of funds shall be ensured by means of ongoing state monitoring at population level. In such cases, a mitigation measure cannot be deemed to be a satisfactory alternative solution within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC if its implementation and operational effectiveness are likely to result in a delay to the project of at least twelve months following the date on which the authorisation decision enters into force. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Where a plan, programme or project falling within the scope of this Regulation requires decisions to be taken in two or more Member States, the relevant national competent authorities shall take all necessary steps for efficient and effective cooperation and communication among themselves. Member States shall endeavour to provide for joint procedure and unique point of contact with regard to the assessment of the environmental effects of the plan, programme or project. Upon request from the Member States concerned by a plan, programme or project, the Commission shall act as a facilitator to support cooperation between concerned national competent authorities and facilitate agreement on joint procedure. | 1. Where a plan, programme or project falling within the scope of this Regulation requires decisions to be taken in two or more Member States, the relevant national competent authorities shall take all necessary steps for efficient and effective cooperation and communication among themselves from the earliest stages of the environmental assessment procedure, and in any event before the determination of the scope referred to in Article 7. Member States shall endeavour to provide for a joint procedure and a single point of contact with regard to the assessment of the environmental effects of the plan, programme or project. Upon request from the Member States concerned by a plan, programme or project, the Commission shall act as a facilitator to support cooperation between the concerned national competent authorities and facilitate agreement on the joint procedure |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Where a plan, programme or project falling within the scope of this Regulation requires decisions to be taken in two or more Member States, the relevant national competent authorities shall take all necessary steps for efficient and effective cooperation and communication among themselves. Member States shall endeavour to provide for joint procedure and unique point of contact with regard to the assessment of the environmental effects of the plan, programme or project. Upon request from the Member States concerned by a plan, programme or project, the Commission shall act as a facilitator to support cooperation between concerned national competent authorities and facilitate agreement on joint procedure. | 1. Where a plan, programme or project falling within the scope of this Regulation requires decisions to be taken in two or more Member States, the relevant national competent authorities shall take all necessary steps for efficient and effective cooperation and communication among themselves. Member States shall provide for joint procedure and unique point of contact with regard to the assessment of the environmental effects of the plan, programme or project. Upon request from the Member States concerned by a plan, programme or project, the Commission shall act as a facilitator to support cooperation between concerned national competent authorities and facilitate agreement on joint procedure. In such a case, deadlines set in accordance with Articles 7 (1) and (2) should apply. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| b) the progress of the environmental assessments and screening procedure, including the upcoming steps of the procedure and the timeline or those steps as well as information on dispute settlement (after six months from entry into force). | b) the progress of the environmental assessments and screening procedure, including the upcoming steps of the procedure and the timeline or those steps as well as information on dispute settlement and regularly updated performance indicators, including average processing times and the number of pending applications; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) the progress of the environmental assessments and screening procedures, including the upcoming steps of the procedure and the timeline of those steps, as well as information on dispute settlement; | (b) the progress of the environmental assessments and screening procedures, including the upcoming steps of the procedure and the timeline of those steps, as well as information on dispute settlement, respecting the limitations with regard to commercial and industrial confidentiality, including intellectual property. |
Any data published has to respect limitations with respect to commercial and industrial confidentiality, including intellectual property and data protection.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ba) the timetable, procedural steps, consultations and information requests |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. From [OP: please insert the date = twelve months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], Member States shall ensure that reports and data resulting from environmental assessments and screening procedures, related decisions and monitoring of environmental effects and procedures are made and remain publicly available in a digital format through a central online portal, in a manner that is compatible with the preservation of business secrets and Union or national data protection requirements. That portal shall be based on a digital geographic information system and shall include all available data on species observations and other environmental and geological data. | 3. From [OP: please insert the date = twelve months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], Member States shall ensure that reports and data resulting from environmental assessments and screening procedures, related decisions and monitoring of environmental effects and procedures are made and remain publicly available in a digital format through a central online portal, in a manner that is compatible with the preservation of business secrets, industrial secrets, intellectual property, security of critical infrastructure, along with the protection of sensitive data on economic operators, strategic facilities and data on geology, water, the environment or protected species, and Union or national data protection requirements. That portal shall be based on a digital geographic information system and shall include all available data on species observations and other environmental and geological data. |
Digitalisation and publication of environmental data must not expose sensitive information about operators, industrial sites, critical infrastructure, natural resources or protected species.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. From [OP: please insert the date = twelve months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], Member States shall ensure that reports and data resulting from environmental assessments and screening procedures, related decisions and monitoring of environmental effects and procedures are made and remain publicly available in a digital format through a central online portal, in a manner that is compatible with the preservation of business secrets and Union or national data protection requirements. That portal shall be based on a digital geographic information system and shall include all available data on species observations and other environmental and geological data. | 3. From [OP: please insert the date = twelve months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], Member States shall ensure that reports and data resulting from environmental assessments and screening procedures, related decisions and monitoring of environmental effects and procedures are made and remain publicly available in a digital format through a central online portal, in a manner that is compatible with the preservation of business secrets and Union or national data protection requirements. That portal shall be based on a digital geographic information system and shall include all available data on species observations and other environmental and geological data. Information shall be made available with due regard for the protection of business and industrial secrets and shall be managed in a proportionate manner, avoiding any unnecessary administrative burden, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises and project promoters. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. From [OP: please insert the date = twelve months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], Member States shall ensure that reports and data resulting from environmental assessments and screening procedures, related decisions and monitoring of environmental effects and procedures are made and remain publicly available in a digital format through a central online portal, in a manner that is compatible with the preservation of business secrets and Union or national data protection requirements. That portal shall be based on a digital geographic information system and shall include all available data on species observations and other environmental and geological data. | 3. From [OP: please insert the date = twelve months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], Member States shall ensure that reports and data resulting from environmental assessments and screening procedures, related decisions and monitoring of environmental effects and procedures are made and remain publicly available in a digital format through a central online portal, in a manner that is compatible with the preservation of business secrets and Union or national data protection requirements. Member States shall not be required to publish or centralise information whose disclosure is restricted under Union or national law, including for reasons relating to protected species, national security, defence, public safety or critical infrastructure. Member States shall ensure, where appropriate, that information made publicly available remains sufficiently current and relevant for environmental assessment purposes. |
Digital portals should support the reuse of data without overriding national confidentiality rules or publishing outdated or sensitive information. This amendment protects protected species and security-sensitive information while keeping the portal useful.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. From [OP: please insert the date = twelve months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], Member States shall ensure that reports and data resulting from environmental assessments and screening procedures, related decisions and monitoring of environmental effects and procedures are made and remain publicly available in a digital format through a central online portal, in a manner that is compatible with the preservation of business secrets and Union or national data protection requirements. That portal shall be based on a digital geographic information system and shall include all available data on species observations and other environmental and geological data. | 3. From [OP: please insert the date = twelve months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], Member States shall ensure that reports and data resulting from environmental assessments and screening procedures, related decisions and monitoring of environmental effects and procedures are made and remain publicly available in a digital format through a central online portal, in a manner that is compatible with the preservation of business secrets and Union or national data protection requirements. That portal shall be based on a digital geographic information system and shall include all available data on species observations and other environmental and geological data. The portal shall function as the single digital access point for the developer for all submissions, notifications and procedural information relating to environmental assessments. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. From [OP: please insert the date = twelve months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], Member States shall ensure that reports and data resulting from environmental assessments and screening procedures, related decisions and monitoring of environmental effects and procedures are made and remain publicly available in a digital format through a central online portal, in a manner that is compatible with the preservation of business secrets and Union or national data protection requirements. That portal shall be based on a digital geographic information system and shall include all available data on species observations and other environmental and geological data. | 3. From [OP: please insert the date = twenty-four months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], Member States shall ensure that in addition to requirements under Article 6 paragraph 5 sentence 2 of Directive 2011/92/EU reports and data resulting from environmental assessments and screening procedures, related decisions and monitoring of environmental effects and procedures are made and remain available in a digital format through a central online portal for the minimum duration of six years. |
This amendment ensures that the digitalisation of environmental assessment and screening procedures remains proportionate, practicable and legally sound. It limits open-ended publication obligations by introducing a clear retention period, while preserving public access to relevant environmental information. It also avoids disproportionate burdens on Member States by clarifying that no obligation is created to digitise all existing environmental or geological datasets. At the same time, it provides for more realistic implementation timelines and ensures that digital and automated systems respect data protection, business confidentiality, defence and security interests, critical infrastructure protection and human decisional control.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. From [OP: please insert the date = twenty-four months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], Member States shall ensure that environmental assessment and screening procedures are fully digitalized and enable the re-use of data and documents held by public authorities at national level as well as the sharing of such data between Member States, developers and the public, in a seamless manner. Where appropriate, such procedures shall be interoperable with European Digital Identity Wallets and European Business Wallets. From that date, Member States shall also take the necessary measures to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their environmental assessment and screening procedures, including through the use of automated systems. These automated systems shall be aligned with relevant Union policies, respect data protection and privacy laws, and adhere to principles of transparency and accountability, including human decisional control. | 4. From [OP: please insert the date = twenty-four months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], Member States shall ensure that environmental assessment and screening procedures are fully digitalized and enable the re-use of data and documents held by public authorities at national level as well as the sharing of such data between Member States, developers and the public, in a seamless manner. Where appropriate, such procedures shall be interoperable with European Digital Identity Wallets and European Business Wallets. From that date, Member States shall also take the necessary measures to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their environmental assessment and screening procedures, including through the use of automated systems. These automated systems shall be aligned with relevant Union policies, respect data protection and privacy laws, and adhere to principles of transparency and accountability, including human decisional control, which shall be documented, traceable and carried out before any decision having legal effects. |
The Regulation already provides for human oversight of decisions. It should be made clear, however, that such oversight must be effective, documented and carried out before any decision producing legal effects is adopted.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. From [OP: please insert the date = twenty-four months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], Member States shall ensure that environmental assessment and screening procedures are fully digitalized and enable the re-use of data and documents held by public authorities at national level as well as the sharing of such data between Member States, developers and the public, in a seamless manner. Where appropriate, such procedures shall be interoperable with European Digital Identity Wallets and European Business Wallets. From that date, Member States shall also take the necessary measures to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their environmental assessment and screening procedures, including through the use of automated systems. These automated systems shall be aligned with relevant Union policies, respect data protection and privacy laws, and adhere to principles of transparency and accountability, including human decisional control. | 4. From [OP: please insert the date = fourty-eight months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], where technically and financially feasible, Member States shall ensure that environmental assessment and screening procedures are fully digitalized and enable the re-use of data and documents held by public authorities at national level as well as the sharing of such data between Member States, developers and, for the purpose of public participation under Article 6 of Directive 2011/92/EU, the public.Where appropriate, such procedures shall be interoperable with European Digital Identity Wallets and European Business Wallets. From that date, Member States shall also take the necessary measures to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their environmental assessment and screening procedures, including through the use of automated systems. |
This amendment ensures that the digitalisation of environmental assessment and screening procedures remains proportionate, practicable and legally sound. It limits open-ended publication obligations by introducing a clear retention period, while preserving public access to relevant environmental information. It also avoids disproportionate burdens on Member States by clarifying that no obligation is created to digitise all existing environmental or geological datasets. At the same time, it provides for more realistic implementation timelines and ensures that digital and automated systems respect data protection, business confidentiality, defence and security interests, critical infrastructure protection and human decisional control.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4a. The provision of access pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be subject to applicable Union and national rules, in particular those concerning: | |
| a) the protection of confidential business information and trade secrets; | |
| b) the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy; | |
| c) defence interests and security requirements linked to defence-related activities; | |
| d) critical infrastructure projects covered by Directive (EU) 2022/2557; | |
| e) the protection of public security interests. | |
| Such access shall be granted in a manner that respects transparency and accountability and ensures that meaningful human decision-making remains in place. |
This amendment ensures that the digitalisation of environmental assessment and screening procedures remains proportionate, practicable and legally sound. It limits open-ended publication obligations by introducing a clear retention period, while preserving public access to relevant environmental information. It also avoids disproportionate burdens on Member States by clarifying that no obligation is created to digitise all existing environmental or geological datasets. At the same time, it provides for more realistic implementation timelines and ensures that digital and automated systems respect data protection, business confidentiality, defence and security interests, critical infrastructure protection and human decisional control.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article10a | |
| The Commission shall provide technical assistance to Member States for the implementation of Article 10, and in particular shall: | |
| a) make available, within six months of the entry into force of this Regulation, common technical specifications and interoperable templates for the central portals referred to in paragraph 3 of Article 10, in accordance with the European Interoperability Framework established by Regulation (EU) 2024/903; | |
| b) establish, within twelve months of the entry into force of this Regulation, a best practice sharing platform among the competent authorities of Member States for the digitalisation of environmental assessment procedures; | |
| c) facilitate Member States' access to Union funds available to support the digitalisation of public administrations, in particular the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the Structural Funds and the Digital Europe Programme, for the purposes of implementing this Article. | |
| Member States encountering difficulties in implementing Article 10 within the established deadlines shall notify the Commission of the reasons for the delay and the measures taken to remedy it. The Commission shall provide targeted assistance and may propose, where necessary, specific support measures for competent authorities with lesser technical and administrative capacity. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 11 | deleted |
| Administrative costs of environmental assessments | |
| Member States shall endeavour to waive administrative charges and fees associated with environmental assessments for developers falling within the definition of small mid-cap enterprises under Recommendation (EU) 2025/1099 or within the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises under Recommendation 361/2003/EC. |
As regards administrative fees, the fundamental principle must be that project-specific costs incurred by operators are not shifted onto municipalities, residents or taxpayers. If the charging or allocation of costs arising from administrative procedures, supervision or assessments is restricted, there is a high risk that the cost burden will be transferred to public, and in some cases municipal, finances. As a rule, the costs of assessing and supervising environmentally harmful activities should be borne by the operator in accordance with the “polluter pays” principle.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 11 | deleted |
| Administrative costs of environmental assessments | |
| Member States shall endeavour to waive administrative charges and fees associated with environmental assessments for developers falling within the definition of small mid-cap enterprises under Recommendation (EU) 2025/1099 or within the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises under Recommendation 361/2003/EC. |
Fee levels for environmental permitting are fundamentally a matter of national funding and resource allocation, and introducing EU-wide principles on fee exemptions or differentiation risks creating new administrative burdens rather than reducing them. Requiring Member States to aim for no fees for SMEs also risks simply shifting fees onto large companies, rather than focusing on cost-efficient administration.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Member States shall endeavour to waive administrative charges and fees associated with environmental assessments for developers falling within the definition of small mid-cap enterprises under Recommendation (EU) 2025/1099 or within the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises under Recommendation 361/2003/EC. | Member States shall endeavour to waive administrative charges and fees associated with environmental assessments for developers falling within the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises under Recommendation 361/2003/EC. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 12 | deleted |
| Resources and training | |
| Member States shall ensure that the environmental single point of contact and all competent authorities responsible for any step in the screening and environmental assessments procedures, including all procedural steps, have a sufficient number of qualified staff and sufficient financial, technical and technological resources necessary, including, where appropriate, for up-skilling and re-skilling of staff, for the effective performance of their tasks under this Regulation and under the Directives referred to in Article 1. |
The organisation, staffing and resourcing of competent authorities remain a responsibility of the Member States. While effective permitting procedures require adequate administrative capacity, this Regulation should not prescribe detailed obligations on the number of staff, budgetary resources or training measures at national level. With increasing digitalisation and the establishment of more efficient procedures, Member States should retain the flexibility to organise their administrations in accordance with their national structures, needs and budgetary frameworks.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Member States shall ensure that the environmental single point of contact and all competent authorities responsible for any step in the screening and environmental assessments procedures, including all procedural steps, have a sufficient number of qualified staff and sufficient financial, technical and technological resources necessary, including, where appropriate, for up-skilling and re-skilling of staff, for the effective performance of their tasks under this Regulation and under the Directives referred to in Article 1. | Member States shall ensure that the environmental single point of contact and all competent authorities responsible for any step in the screening and environmental assessments procedures, including all procedural steps, have a sufficient number of qualified staff and sufficient financial, technical and technological resources necessary, including, where appropriate, for up-skilling and re-skilling of staff, for the effective performance of their tasks under this Regulation and under the Directives referred to in Article 1. |
| At the request of individual Member States, the European Commission shall promote joint training for the environmental single point of contact and competent authorities involved in screening and environmental assessment procedures, including on procedural coordination, the distinction between procedural coordination and substantive assessment, the re-use of data, the coordination of consultations and the preservation of the quality and completeness of environmental assessments. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Member States shall ensure that the environmental single point of contact and all competent authorities responsible for any step in the screening and environmental assessments procedures, including all procedural steps, have a sufficient number of qualified staff and sufficient financial, technical and technological resources necessary, including, where appropriate, for up-skilling and re-skilling of staff, for the effective performance of their tasks under this Regulation and under the Directives referred to in Article 1. | Member States shall ensure that the environmental single point of contact and all competent authorities responsible for any step in the screening and environmental assessments procedures, including all procedural steps, have a sufficient number of qualified staff and sufficient financial, technical and technological resources necessary, including, where appropriate, for up-skilling and re-skilling of staff, for the effective performance of their tasks under this Regulation and under the Directives referred to in Article 1. The implementation of this Regulation shall not result in the transfer of uncompensated burdens to the local, regional or devolved authorities responsible for environmental assessments. |
The Regulation requires Member States to provide sufficient human, financial, technical and technological resources. The requirement should not result in hidden burdens for local authorities and administrations, which are already directly exposed to the practical implementation of authorisation procedures.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Member States shall ensure that the environmental single point of contact and all competent authorities responsible for any step in the screening and environmental assessments procedures, including all procedural steps, have a sufficient number of qualified staff and sufficient financial, technical and technological resources necessary, including, where appropriate, for up-skilling and re-skilling of staff, for the effective performance of their tasks under this Regulation and under the Directives referred to in Article 1. | Member States shall ensure that the environmental single point of contact and all relevant competent authorities responsible for any step in the screening and environmental assessments procedures, including all procedural steps, have a sufficient capacity and so an adequate number of qualified staff and sufficient financial, technical and technological resources necessary, including, where appropriate, for up-skilling and re-skilling of staff, for the effective performance of their tasks under this Regulation and under the Directives referred to in Article 1. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Member States shall ensure that the environmental single point of contact and all competent authorities responsible for any step in the screening and environmental assessments procedures, including all procedural steps, have a sufficient number of qualified staff and sufficient financial, technical and technological resources necessary, including, where appropriate, for up-skilling and re-skilling of staff, for the effective performance of their tasks under this Regulation and under the Directives referred to in Article 1. | Member States shall ensure that the environmental single point of contact and all competent authorities responsible for any step in the screening and environmental assessments procedures, including all procedural steps, have a sufficient number of qualified staff and sufficient financial autonomy, as well as adequate technical and technological resources necessary, including, where appropriate, for up-skilling and re-skilling of staff, for the effective performance of their tasks under this Regulation and under the Directives referred to in Article 1. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| By [OP: 24 months after entry into force] and every two years thereafter, each Member State shall submit to the Commission a report setting out: | |
| (a) the number of qualified staff assigned to environmental assessment procedures; | |
| (b) the average duration of each procedural step under Article 7; | |
| (c) identified capacity gaps and remedial measures planned or taken and estimated Union’s support needs, including in financial form. | |
| Within six months after the deadlines set out in the previous subparagraph, the Commission shall publish the Member States’ reports and submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council comparing the national reports and outlining the planned Union’s support. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1a. For the purposes of paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities responsible for environmental assessments have at all times a level of staffing adequate to the actual caseload. To that end, within twelve months of the entry into force of this Regulation, Member States shall carry out an assessment of the staffing needs of the competent authorities, taking into account the average annual number of screening and environmental assessment procedures initiated over the preceding three years, the average complexity of the projects assessed, and the deadlines laid down in Article 7 of this Regulation. The results of that assessment shall be communicated to the Commission and made publicly available |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Member States shall regularly monitor whether the administrative, technical and technological resources deployed are set at the right level to produce a real reduction in environmental assessment time frames. Monitoring shall take into account the burden borne by the competent local and regional authorities. |
Administrative resources should be geared towards a real reduction in deadlines. Monitoring the impact of the resources deployed makes it possible to avoid new obligations resulting in additional administrative burdens with no measurable gain.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The implementation of this Article shall be without prejudice to the budgetary prerogatives of the Member States and shall take place within the limits of the available financial resources. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1b. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that at least 50% of the fees and administrative charges collected from project proponents for screening and environmental assessment procedures is directly allocated to the financing of the competent authorities responsible for those procedures, including the recruitment and training of staff, the acquisition of technical and technological equipment, and the development of the digital systems referred to in Article 10. Member States may set a higher proportion taking into account the actual cost of the assessment procedures. Member States shall ensure transparency in the management of those revenues and shall report annually to the Commission on the use of the proceeds collected |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1c. The Commission shall monitor the organisational adequacy of the competent authorities of Member States and shall publish every two years a report on the state of implementation of this Article, accompanied by specific recommendations for Member States presenting structural deficiencies in the staffing or resources of their competent authorities |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The exercise of the rights provided for in this Article shall not lead to disproportionate delays in the permitting processes or duplication of procedural requirements already fulfilled under Union law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | deleted |
| Toolbox for strategic sectors or categories | |
| 1. | |
| The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | |
| The Commission is empowered to adopt an implementing act identifying strategic projects for the construction and renovation of residential affordable or social buildings, as well as the necessary infrastructure that directly serves those buildings. The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply to those projects. | |
| 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall also apply to strategic sectors or categories of projects defined in future Union legislation which refers to this Regulation, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | deleted |
| Toolbox for strategic sectors or categories | |
| 1. | |
| The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | |
| The Commission is empowered to adopt an implementing act identifying strategic projects for the construction and renovation of residential affordable or social buildings, as well as the necessary infrastructure that directly serves those buildings. The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply to those projects. | |
| 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall also apply to strategic sectors or categories of projects defined in future Union legislation which refers to this Regulation, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | deleted |
| Toolbox for strategic sectors or categories | |
| 1. | |
| The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | |
| The Commission is empowered to adopt an implementing act identifying strategic projects for the construction and renovation of residential affordable or social buildings, as well as the necessary infrastructure that directly serves those buildings. The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply to those projects. | |
| 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall also apply to strategic sectors or categories of projects defined in future Union legislation which refers to this Regulation, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. |
In the regulatory solution wide-ranging procedural effects are linked to so-called “toolbox regulation” and are to be activated subsequently through other legislation. Such a structure may undermine the predictability of the regulatory framework and increase uncertainty. The regulatory framework should be implemented by means of a more transparent legislative technique, whereby the relevant provisions are laid down in each of the instruments concerned, rather than through cross-references in other legislative acts. In any case the extension of tacit consent in particular should be approached with caution, as it is ill-suited to complex environmental and permitting procedures affecting third-party rights and public interest.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | deleted |
| Toolbox for strategic sectors or categories | |
| 1. | |
| The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | |
| The Commission is empowered to adopt an implementing act identifying strategic projects for the construction and renovation of residential affordable or social buildings, as well as the necessary infrastructure that directly serves those buildings. The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply to those projects. | |
| 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall also apply to strategic sectors or categories of projects defined in future Union legislation which refers to this Regulation, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Toolbox for strategic sectors or categories | Exclusion of certain projects in strategic sectors and categories |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience, decarbonisation, resource efficiency, security of supply, energy, industrial, food, digital or technological sovereignty, the Union’s competitiveness or reducing critical dependencies. |
The toolbox must benefit truly strategic projects for the autonomy of the EU and the Member States. Resilience cannot be reduced strictly to the climate or the environment.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to Union competitiveness, security of supply, economic and industrial resilience, energy security, decarbonisation or resource efficiency. |
Jeannette Baljeu, Andreas Glück, Katri Kulmuni, Olivier Chastel, Engin Eroglu, Ana Vasconcelos, Ilhan Kyuchyuk
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience, security, defence readiness, including military mobility, digital sovereignty, decarbonisation or resource efficiency. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation on the one hand or notable resource efficiency on the other hand, in particular: |
"notable resource efficiency" = faster permitting and a presumption of public interest or overriding public interest should be reserved for projects that make a genuine, substantial and measurable contribution to Union objectives, not for routine upgrades, maintenance or marginal optimisation of existing activities.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply to strategic transformation projects. Member States shall ensure that such projects benefit from coordinated, streamlined and accelerated environmental assessments and permit-granting procedures, including where such projects fall within the scope of existing sectorial Union legilsation. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | Projects that run counter to the green transition, owing to their massive consumption of raw materials, land take resulting from their construction, or greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their operations, shall not be considered strategic. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Projects relating to data centres, supercomputing facilities, AI factories and AI gigafactories may benefit from the provisions set out in the Annex only where they effectively contribute to the Union’s digital autonomy, data security, the resilience of European digital infrastructure and the development of capacities located in the Union, while taking into account their foreseeable water, energy and land use consumption as well as their compatibility with available local capacities and essential needs of the areas concerned. |
The toolbox should not automatically benefit digital projects that do not have a clear European grounding. AI and data infrastructure must contribute to the EU’s digital sovereignty without overburdening water, energy and land or the essential needs of the areas concerned.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Strategic net-zero technology manufacturing projects and strategic net-zero projects, as defined in Regulation (EU) 2024/173; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Strategic critical raw material projects as defined in Regulation (EU) 2024/1252; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Projects for the prevention, separate collection, re-use, preparing for re-use, and recycling as defined in Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC; |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Integrated production facilities and open EU foundries as defined in Regulation (EU) 2023/1781 (The Chips Act) |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Regulation XXXXX (establishing a framework of measures for the acceleration of industrial capacity and decarbonisation in strategic sectors and amending Regulations (EU) 2018/1724, (EU) 2024/1735 and (EU) 2024/3110) – Industrial Accelerator Act |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Directive (XXXX) amending Directives (EU) 2018/2001, (EU) 2019/944, (EU) 2024/1788 as regards acceleration of permit-granting procedures |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Regulation (XXXXX) on establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Union’s biotechnology and biomanufacturing sectors particularly in the area of health and amending Regulations (EC) No 178/2002, (EC) No 1394/2007, (EU) No 536/2014, (EU) 2019/6, (EU) 2024/795 and (EU) 2024/1938 (European Biotech Act) |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Regulation (XXXX) laying a framework for strengthening the availability and security of supply of critical medicinal products as well as the availability of, and accessibility of, medicinal products of common interest, and amending Regulation (EU) 2024/795 (Critical Medecines Act) |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 'Joint clean technology and energy-intensive industry projects' which combine complementary components to modernise and decarbonise existing energy-intensive industrial installations through the deployment of proven clean-technology technologies as refferred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2024/173 (NZIA) , and that enable the scaling of the clean-technology provider and related supply chains necessary for that deployment, including as regards energy efficiency improvements, fuel switching, electrification, renewable energy deployment, process innovation and other greenhouse-gas-reducing technologies, in line with the technology neutrality principle. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The Commission is empowered to adopt an implementing act identifying strategic projects for the construction and renovation of residential affordable or social buildings, as well as the necessary infrastructure that directly serves those buildings. The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply to those projects. | deleted |
The Commission should not have the power to label housing projects, which is a matter for the Member States and the competent local authorities.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The Commission is empowered to adopt an implementing act identifying strategic projects for the construction and renovation of residential affordable or social buildings, as well as the necessary infrastructure that directly serves those buildings. The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply to those projects. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The Commission is empowered to adopt an implementing act identifying strategic projects for the construction and renovation of residential affordable or social buildings, as well as the necessary infrastructure that directly serves those buildings. The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply to those projects. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The Commission is empowered to adopt an implementing act identifying strategic projects for the construction and renovation of residential affordable or social buildings, as well as the necessary infrastructure that directly serves those buildings. The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply to those projects. | From a green transition perspective, projects shall not be considered strategic if they require widespread urbanisation. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall also apply to strategic sectors or categories of projects defined in future Union legislation which refers to this Regulation, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall also apply to strategic sectors or categories of projects defined in future Union legislation which refers to this Regulation, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall also apply to strategic sectors or categories of projects defined in future Union legislation which refers to this Regulation, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation on the one hand or notable resource efficiency on the other hand. Project developers and all authorities concerned shall ensure that projects referred to in this article and the corresponding administrative processes are treated in the most rapid way possible in accordance with Union and national law. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall also apply to strategic sectors or categories of projects defined in future Union legislation which refers to this Regulation, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall also apply to strategic sectors or categories of projects defined in future Union legislation which refers to this Regulation, provided that those projects contribute to Union competitiveness, security of supply, economic and industrial resilience, energy security, decarbonisation or resource efficiency. |
Jeannette Baljeu, Andreas Glück, Katri Kulmuni, Olivier Chastel, Engin Eroglu, Ana Vasconcelos, Ilhan Kyuchyuk
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall also apply to strategic sectors or categories of projects defined in future Union legislation which refers to this Regulation, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall also apply to strategic sectors or categories of projects defined in future Union legislation which refers to this Regulation, provided that those projects contribute to resilience, security, defence readiness, including military mobility, digital sovereignty, decarbonisation or resource efficiency. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall also apply to strategic sectors or categories of projects defined in future Union legislation which refers to this Regulation, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | 2. Projects for artificial water reservoirs, motorways or freight transport infrastructure built on arable agricultural land shall not be considered strategic. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall also apply to strategic sectors or categories of projects defined in future Union legislation which refers to this Regulation, provided that those projects contribute to resilience and decarbonisation or resource efficiency. | 2. The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to the Union energy and climate targets as defined notably in Regulation (EU) 2021/1119. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Projects benefiting from the provisions set out in the Annex shall contribute, where appropriate, to strengthening European value chains, maintaining or creating productive capacities located in the Union, and reducing dependencies on third countries for critical raw materials, components, technologies or infrastructure, in particular where those third countries do not comply with EU environmental protection standards. |
Strategic investments should strengthen European productive capacities and not only accelerate projects that are not industrially grounded in the EU.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2b. The sectors or categories of strategic projects referred to in this Article may include projects in key agricultural and agri-food infrastructure, sustainable irrigation, water storage, local processing, cold storage, community logistics and sectors contributing to food security where they contribute to resilience, food sovereignty or the reduction of critical dependencies. |
Food security is a strategic issue. Farming, water, storage, processing and logistics infrastructure must be able to benefit from fast-track procedures when they enhance resilience and food sovereignty.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2c. Where a project benefits from the provisions set out in the Annex, Member States may take into account its local economic impact, its contribution to maintaining or creating jobs in the Union, its integration into European value chains, as well as its impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, subcontractors and affected territories. |
Speeding up environmental assessments must benefit regions, European companies, SMEs, training, local employment and EU value chains.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2d. Application of the provisions set out in the Annex shall take into account the principle of proportionality, the impact on competitiveness, energy security, employment, administrative costs and the risk of leakage of investment or productive capacities outside the Union. |
Environmental and procedural obligations must be proportionate and not undermine European competitiveness, employment, energy security or the retention of productive capacities in the Union.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article14a | |
| Overriding public interest for strategic digital infrastructure | |
| Member States shall ensure that the planning, construction, operation and modification of strategic digital infrastructure, including data centres, EuroHPC supercomputer facilities, AI factories and AI gigafactories, and their connection to the grid, are presumed to be in the overriding public interest. | |
| Where such projects contribute to critical infrastructure, security of supply, digital sovereignty or the resilience of the Union, they shall also be presumed to serve public safety or public security. | |
| The presumptions set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply for the purposes of Article 6(4) and Article 16(1), point (c), of Directive 92/43/EEC, Article 9(1), point (a), of Directive 2009/147/EC, and Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC. | |
| For the projects referred to in paragraph 1, the overriding public interest and, where relevant, the public safety or public security interest shall be established by virtue of this Regulation and shall not require a separate project-level justification. The remaining conditions set out in the provisions referred to in paragraph 3 shall continue to apply. In assessing the absence of alternative solutions, competent authorities shall only consider alternatives that are technically and economically feasible and capable of achieving the same strategic objective within a comparable timeframe. |
Strategic digital infrastructure is essential for the Union’s competitiveness, digital sovereignty, resilience and security. This amendment gives legal effect to that strategic status by establishing a presumption of overriding public interest, and where relevant public safety or public security, without removing the remaining safeguards under Union environmental law.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 14a | |
| Exclusion of certain projects from strategic sectors and categories | |
| 1. Projects that run counter to the green transition, owing to their massive consumption of raw materials, land take or greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their operations, shall not be considered strategic. | |
| 2. From a green transition perspective, projects shall not be considered strategic if they require widespread urbanisation. | |
| 3. Projects for artificial water reservoirs, motorways or freight transport infrastructure built on arable agricultural land shall not be considered strategic. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article14a | |
| Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 [NZIA] | |
| Articles 9(5), [9(9)], 9(10), 10, 11(2) and 12 and 15 are deleted. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article14b | |
| Overriding public interest for strategic energy projects | |
| Member States shall ensure that the planning, construction, operation and modification of strategic energy projects contributing to decarbonisation, security of supply or system resilience are presumed to be in the overriding public interest. | |
| The projects referred to in paragraph 1 shall include renewable energy projects, electricity grids, energy storage, recharging infrastructure, hydrogen infrastructure, CO2 capture, transport and geological storage infrastructure, nuclear power plants including small modular reactors and advanced nuclear technologies, and related pipeline, fuel-cycle and grid connection infrastructure. | |
| Where such projects contribute to security of supply, critical energy infrastructure or system resilience, they shall also be presumed to serve public safety or public security. | |
| The presumptions set out in paragraphs 1 and 3 shall apply for the purposes of Article 6(4) and Article 16(1), point (c), of Directive 92/43/EEC, Article 9(1), point (a), of Directive 2009/147/EC, Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC, and, where applicable Article 16f of Directive (EU) 2018/2001, and Article 15(4) of Directive 2010/75/EU. | |
| For the projects referred to in paragraph 1, the overriding public interest and, where relevant, the public safety or public security interest shall be established by virtue of this Regulation and shall not require a separate project-level justification. The remaining conditions set out in the provisions referred to in paragraph 4 shall continue to apply. In assessing the absence of alternative solutions, competent authorities shall only consider alternatives that are technically and economically feasible and capable of achieving the same strategic objective within a comparable timeframe. |
Strategic energy projects are essential for decarbonisation, security of supply, system resilience and industrial competitiveness. This amendment establishes a clear presumption of overriding public interest, and where relevant public safety or public security, for such projects while preserving the remaining conditions and safeguards under Union environmental law.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article14b | |
| Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2024/1252 [CRMA] | |
| Aticles 10, 11(5), 11(6), 11(8)12, 13(2) and 14are deleted. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article14c | |
| Overriding public interest for defence readiness projects | |
| Overriding public interest for defence readiness projects Member States shall ensure that the planning, construction, operation and modification of defence readiness projects are presumed to be in the overriding public interest and to serve public safety or public security. | |
| Defence readiness projects shall include a set of activities, investments and measures aimed at enhancing the defence readiness of a Member State or more Member States jointly, including through the development or modernisation of the defence industry. | |
| The presumptions set out in paragraph 1 shall apply for the purposes of Article 6(4) and Article 16(1), point (c), of Directive 92/43/EEC, Article 9(1), point (a), of Directive 2009/147/EC, Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC and, where applicable, Article 15(4) of Directive 2010/75/EU. | |
| For defence readiness projects, Member States may apply the exemptions or specific provisions available under Union law in the interests of defence or national security, including Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and, for projects having defence as their sole purpose, Article 1(3) of Directive 2011/92/EU. This shall be without prejudice to Article 4(2) TEU and Article 346 TFEU. | |
| For the projects referred to in paragraph 1, the overriding public interest and public safety or public security interest shall be established by virtue of this Regulation and shall not require a separate project-level justification. The remaining conditions set out in the provisions referred to in paragraph 3 shall continue to apply. In assessing the absence of alternative solutions, competent authorities shall only consider alternatives that are technically and economically feasible and capable of achieving the same strategic objective within a comparable timeframe. |
Defence readiness is essential to the security and resilience of the Union and its Member States. This amendment establishes a clear presumption of overriding public interest, public safety and public security for defence readiness projects, while preserving Member State competence for national security and the remaining conditions under Union environmental law.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article14c | |
| Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2023/1781 [Chips Act] | |
| Article 18(3) is deleted. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article16a | |
| Amendment to Directive 2011/92/EU | |
| In Article 1 of Directive 2011/92/EU, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: | |
| “3. This Directive shall not apply to projects, or parts of projects, the main purpose of which is to serve defence, including national or collective defence, or preparedness for or response to civil emergencies. The Member State concerned shall determine, in accordance with national law, whether those conditions are fulfilled. This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to apply national assessment, consultation or information requirements to such projects, or parts of projects.” |
The current “sole purpose” test is too narrow for modern defence and civil preparedness projects, which are often dual-use or integrated with civilian infrastructure. Replacing it with a “main purpose” test gives Member States the necessary flexibility to strengthen defence readiness and emergency preparedness, while preserving national discretion to apply domestic safeguards.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article16b | |
| Amendment to Directive 2001/42/EC | |
| In Article 3(8) of Directive 2001/42/EC, the first indent is replaced by the following: | |
| “- plans and programmes, or parts thereof, the main purpose of which is to serve defence, including national or collective defence, or preparedness for or response to civil emergencies;” |
Plans and programmes serving defence or civil emergency preparedness are often part of broader civilian planning frameworks. The amendment ensures that the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive does not create unnecessary delays for such plans and programmes where their main purpose is defence or preparedness for or response to civil emergencies.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| [...] | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| [...] | deleted |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, with regard to the environmental assessments and the obligations referred to in Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC, Article 9(1), point (a), of Directive 2009/147/EC, Articles 6(4) and 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, certain projects developed for strategic sectors or categories shall be considered to be of public interest and may be considered to have an overriding public interest and to serve the interests of public health and safety provided that all the conditions set out in those Directives are fulfilled. | For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, with regard to the environmental assessments and the obligations referred to in Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC, Article 9(1), point (a), of Directive 2009/147/EC, Articles 6(4) and 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, certain projects developed for strategic sectors or categories shall be considered to be of public interest and may be considered to have an overriding public interest and to serve the interests of public health and safety following an adequate balancing of interests and provided that all the conditions set out in those Directives are fulfilled. When assessing the fulfilment of the conditions referred to in paragraph 1, the strategic nature of the project, shall be given specific consideration. In such case, Member States may to restrict the application of this paragraph to certain parts of their territory, to certain types of technology or to projects with certain technical characteristics. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, with regard to the environmental assessments and the obligations referred to in Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC, Article 9(1), point (a), of Directive 2009/147/EC, Articles 6(4) and 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, certain projects developed for strategic sectors or categories shall be considered to be of public interest and may be considered to have an overriding public interest and to serve the interests of public health and safety provided that all the conditions set out in those Directives are fulfilled. | For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, with regard to the environmental assessments and the obligations referred to in Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC, Article 9(1), point (a), of Directive 2009/147/EC, Articles 6(4) and 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, certain projects developed for strategic sectors or categories shall be considered to be of public interest and shall be presumed to have an overriding public interest and to serve the interests of public health and safety provided that all the conditions set out in those Directives are fulfilled. The security of energy supply, digital sovereignty, defence readiness, and industrial decarbonisation shall constitute imperative reasons of overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC, including the second subparagraph thereof. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, with regard to the environmental assessments and the obligations referred to in Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC, Article 9(1), point (a), of Directive 2009/147/EC, Articles 6(4) and 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, certain projects developed for strategic sectors or categories shall be considered to be of public interest and may be considered to have an overriding public interest and to serve the interests of public health and safety provided that all the conditions set out in those Directives are fulfilled. | For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, with regard to the environmental assessments and the obligations referred to in for the purposes of Article 6(4) and Article 16(1) point (c) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC, Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC, Article 9(1) point (a) of Directive 2009/147/EC, Directive 2008/56/EC, in particular Article 14(1) point (d), thereof and Regulation (EU) 2024/1991, in particular Articles 4(14), 4(15), 5(11), 5(12) and Article 6(1) thereof, as well as in relation to balancing exercises in the implementation of Directive 2011/92/EU, projects developed for strategic sectors or categories shall be considered to be of public interest and are presumed as being in the overriding public interest and serving public health and safety. |
This amendment strengthens legal certainty for projects in strategic sectors that are essential for the Union’s competitiveness, resilience, security of supply and strategic autonomy. Where Union law recognises certain projects as strategic, their public interest should be reflected consistently across the relevant environmental permitting framework. The amendment clarifies that such projects are presumed to be in the overriding public interest and to serve public health and safety for the purposes of the relevant Union environmental legislation and balancing exercises. This reduces divergent interpretation, supports faster and more predictable permitting, and ensures that strategic projects are given appropriate weight, while the applicable environmental safeguards remain in place.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, with regard to the environmental assessments and the obligations referred to in Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC, Article 9(1), point (a), of Directive 2009/147/EC, Articles 6(4) and 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, certain projects developed for strategic sectors or categories shall be considered to be of public interest and may be considered to have an overriding public interest and to serve the interests of public health and safety provided that all the conditions set out in those Directives are fulfilled. | For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, with regard to the environmental assessments and the obligations referred to in Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC, Article 9(1), point (a), of Directive 2009/147/EC, Articles 6(4) and 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, certain projects developed for strategic sectors or categories shall be considered to be of public interest and are presumed to be considered to have an overriding public interest and to serve the interests of public health and safety when balancing legal interest in individual cases and provided that all the conditions set out in those Directives are fulfilled and that it is not likely to have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be mitigated for. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, with regard to the environmental assessments and the obligations referred to in Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC, Article 9(1), point (a), of Directive 2009/147/EC, Articles 6(4) and 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, certain projects developed for strategic sectors or categories shall be considered to be of public interest and may be considered to have an overriding public interest and to serve the interests of public health and safety provided that all the conditions set out in those Directives are fulfilled. | For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, with regard to the environmental assessments and the obligations referred to in Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC, Article 9(1), point (a), of Directive 2009/147/EC, Articles 6(4) and 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, certain projects developed for strategic sectors or categories shall be considered to have an overriding public interest and to serve the interests of public health and safety provided that all the conditions set out in those Directives are fulfilled. |
Concerning project categories that are “only” of public interest and those that have an “overriding public interest”, there should be no freedom of choice to grant overriding public interest to certain projects.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The presumption in paragraph 1 may be rebutted only where it is established, on objective scientific evidence, that no such interest is served; the burden of proof shall lie with the party contesting it. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The assessment of the absence of alternative solutions under Article 6(4) shall be limited to alternatives that are technically and economically feasible and achieve the strategic objective within a comparable timeframe, and shall not require consideration of the no-project option, of alternatives in another Member State, or of alternatives outside the developer's control. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Compensatory measures under Article 6(4) may be implemented in parallel with, rather than as a precondition for, authorisation where their effective delivery is secured, and may be provided at programme or network level where a coherent programme ensures the overall coherence of Natura 2000. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Defence readiness and security of energy supply shall be regarded as public-safety grounds under the second subparagraph of Article 6(4). For other grounds affecting a priority habitat or species, the Commission's opinion under that subparagraph shall be deemed favourable if not delivered within 90 days of a complete request. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The presumption applies on a permanent basis to digital infrastructure and defence readiness projects, and until climate neutrality is achieved to nuclear power, CO2 transport and storage, and other decarbonisation infrastructure. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| When assessing the fulfilment of the conditions referred to in paragraph 1, the strategic nature of the project, shall be given specific consideration. In such case, Member States may, in duly justified and specific circumstances, to restrict the application of this paragraph to certain parts of their territory, to certain types of technology or to projects with certain technical characteristics. | When assessing the fulfilment of the conditions referred to in paragraph 1, the strategic nature of the project, shall be given specific consideration. |
Member States should have no freedom of choice to provide an exemption for the restriction of the application of this paragraph in duly justified and specific circumstances.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, in the authorisation procedures for projects developed for strategic sectors or categories, Member States shall ensure that the lack of reply by the relevant competent authorities within the established deadline results in the specific intermediary administrative steps to be considered as approved, except where the specific project is subject to an environmental impact assessment pursuant to Directives 2000/60/EC, 2009/147/EC, 2011/92/EU or Directive 92/43/EEC or where the principle of administrative tacit approval does not exist in the national legal system of the Member State concerned. | For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, in the authorisation procedures for projects developed for strategic sectors or categories, Member States shall ensure that the lack of reply by the relevant competent authorities within the established deadline results in the specific intermediary administrative steps to be considered as approved, except where the specific project is subject to an environmental impact assessment pursuant to Directives 2000/60/EC, 2009/147/EC, 2011/92/EU or Directive 92/43/EEC or where the principle of administrative tacit approval does not exist in the national legal system of the Member State concerned. It shall similarly not apply where the relevant administrative step concerns elements relating to human health, industrial security, the protection of water resources, the protection of protected species or habitats, the security of critical infrastructure or critical health, industrial, water, environmental or security risks. |
Tacit approval can speed up procedures but should not be taken as implicit confirmation with regard to critical health, industrial, water, environmental or security issues.
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, in the authorisation procedures for projects developed for strategic sectors or categories, Member States shall ensure that the lack of reply by the relevant competent authorities within the established deadline results in the specific intermediary administrative steps to be considered as approved, except where the specific project is subject to an environmental impact assessment pursuant to Directives 2000/60/EC, 2009/147/EC, 2011/92/EU or Directive 92/43/EEC or where the principle of administrative tacit approval does not exist in the national legal system of the Member State concerned. | For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then, in the authorisation procedures for projects developed for strategic sectors or categories, Member States may provide that the lack of reply by the relevant competent authorities within the established deadline results in the specific intermediary administrative steps to be considered as approved, except where the specific project is subject to an environmental impact assessment pursuant to Directives 2000/60/EC, 2009/147/EC, 2011/92/EU or Directive 92/43/EEC or where the principle of administrative tacit approval does not exist in the national legal system of the Member State concerned. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then all dispute resolution procedures, litigation, appeals and judicial remedies related to projects within strategic sectors or categories before any national courts, tribunals or panels, including with regard to mediation or arbitration, where they exist in national law, shall be treated as most expeditious if and to the extent to which national law provides for such expediated procedures and provided that the usually applicable rights of defence of individuals or of local communities are respected. | For projects referred to in Article 14(1) of this Regulation and where Union legislation refers to this provision according to Article 14(2) of this Regulation, then all dispute resolution procedures, litigation, appeals and judicial remedies before national courts shall be treated as most expeditious and shall be given priority, provided that the usually applicable rights of defence of individuals or of local communities are respected. Arguments not raised during the administrative stage, where the necessary information was made available in due time, may not be raised before a court, without prejudice to the right of access to justice. |
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The determination that a project serves an overriding public interest under Section I is an assessment of a policy nature, subject to judicial review only for manifest error of assessment, without prejudice to the right of access to justice. |
Connections
The dossier, the decisions on this text and its other versions.
No connections found for this item.
Sources & citation
Where the facts on this page come from, and how to cite it.
- Data source
- Licensed CC BY 4.0.
- Retrieved
- 25 September 2026
Cite as
European Parliament (2026). “AMENDMENTS 230 - 415 - Draft report Speeding-up environmental assessments”. Text, 24 June 2026. docId ENVI-AM-790193. EU Parl Watch Research. https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/ENVI-AM-790193 (retrieved 25 September 2026). Data: EP Open Data API: document record, https://data.europarl.europa.eu/api/v2/documents/ENVI-AM-790193 (CC BY 4.0).
BibTeX
@misc{epw-text-envi-am-790193,
author = {{European Parliament}},
title = {{AMENDMENTS 230 - 415 - Draft report Speeding-up environmental assessments}},
year = {2026},
date = {2026-06-24},
howpublished = {\url{https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/ENVI-AM-790193}},
url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/ENVI-AM-790193},
urldate = {2026-09-25},
publisher = {EU Parl Watch Research},
note = {Text. docId ENVI-AM-790193. Data: EP Open Data API: document record (CC BY 4.0)}
}