- 07/07/2017Council of State suspends Regional Spatial Implementation Plan “Essers”
- 22/06/2017Extension of nuclear power plants Doel 1 & 2: The Constitutional Court submits preliminary questions to the Court of Justice
- 22/06/2017The Constitutional Court annuls the “Turtel tax”
- 24/03/201723 March 2017 – Schoups organised breakfast session on "What to watch out for in transactions relating to property/real estate companies"
- 09/12/20166 December 2016 – Gwen Bevers and Kristof Hectors spoke at the “Tax optimisation for real estate asset and share transactions” workshop
- 10/10/2016Constitutional Court leaves the environmental permit standing: only a single article nullified
- 31/12/2015New obligations concerning ventilation entered into effect on 1 January 2016
- 03/12/2015Council of State partially suspends the Regional Land Use Plan concerning Antwerp port development
- 03/12/2015Federal Government concludes highly disputed agreement with Electrabel about extending the operation of the Doel 1 and 2 nuclear installations installations until 2025
- 03/12/2015Adaptation of the implementing decrees concerning the permit requirement and activities against destination prescriptions
Council of State suspends Regional Spatial Implementation Plan “Essers”
Council of State suspends Regional Spatial Implementation Plan “Essers”
In a decision of 4 July 2017 (no. 238.763) the Council of State, Administrative Jurisdiction department, suspended the enforcement of the hotly-contested Regional Spatial Implementation Plan that was supposed to make possible a second expansion of the transport company H. Essers.
The Council of State agreed with the Plaintiffs’ assertion that, in the assessment of the environmental impacts, account had to be taken of the combined effects of the challenged GRUP [Gewestelijk ruimtelijk uitvoeringsplan = Regional Spatial Implementation Plan] and the execution of the GRUP of 2009 that related to the first expansion of this transport company. This expansion took place in a nature zone that is protected as a Habitats Directive area and it was linked to the condition that the company would engage in nature development activities in a nearby "restoration zone" of about 10 hectares in the same Habitats Directive area. By the recent second extension the above-mentioned "restoration zone" is being converted into company grounds, and it was made conditional on creating a new natural habitat elsewhere for the protected nature.
The Council of State has ruled that the spatial framework for this new expansion conflicts with the nature conservation duty deriving from article 6 of the Habitats Directive. According to the Council of State, it runs contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice to already take into consideration the newly to be created natural habitat, whose development will be completed after the assessment of the significance of the possible harmful effect on the natural characteristics of the Habitats Directive area involved, in the environmental impact assessment. One thus could not, on the basis of this reasoning, conclude that there will be no significant negative effects as a result of the GRUP for the Habitats Directive area in question within the framework of the so-called "habitat test".
For more information on this subject, you can contact Rami Nasser (author) or Kristof Hectors (unit head).
