The regulation is intended to apply to environmental assessments and preliminary assessments of plans, programs, and projects that fall within the scope of Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/42/EC, 2009/147/EC, 2011/92/EU, and 92/43/EEC. It aims to speed up and streamline the procedures relating to environmental assessments.

The following provisions are particularly noteworthy:

    • Article 3 – Single point of contact for environmental assessments

Member States shall establish or designate environmental single points of contact to facilitate and coordinate all aspects of environmental assessments (paragraph 1).

The contact point is the single point of contact for the project promoter for environmental assessments. It coordinates and facilitates the submission of all relevant documents and information and informs the project promoter of the outcome of the comprehensive decision (para 4).

    • Article 4 – Streamlining of procedures for environmental assessments

Coordinated or joint procedure

If two or more of the aforementioned environmental directives simultaneously require environmental impact assessments or preliminary assessments to be carried out, Member States shall establish a coordinated or joint procedure (para 1).

However, the criteria or conditions under which preliminary assessments or environmental assessments are required under the directives, as well as the content and quality of the assessments, shall not be changed. The coordinated or joint procedure merely provides a framework for the concentration of procedures.

Facilitation of the preparation of environmental impact reports

The results of other relevant environmental assessments under Union or national law shall be made available to project developers for the preparation of environmental impact reports in accordance with the EIA Directive (para 5).

When preparing an environmental impact report, the project developer is permitted to use data or information that is five years old, provided that the data included in the report takes into account the site-specific conservation objectives of Natura -2000 sites, more recent data is not available, and the environmental conditions under which the data was collected have not changed significantly in a way that could affect the environmental impact assessment (para 5).

    • Article 6 – Substantive preclusion

In court proceedings, Member States may preclude arguments in court if they have not been dealt with in the administrative procedure, provided that the competent authority has made the necessary information available in good time. However, the right of access to courts shall remain unaffected. In addition, it is expressly clarified that the provisions of the Aarhus Convention – in particular those concerning access to courts – must continue to be observed regardless of the procedural simplifications (see Art 13; furthermore, recital 29).

Whether this will re-establish the classic link between the scope of party status and the right to appeal in Austrian law, which was significantly weakened by the Aarhus Convention, will only become clear on the basis of the case law of the ECJ.

    • Article 7 – Duration of the preliminary examination and environmental assessments

Article 7 sets maximum time limits for impact assessments within the scope of the EIA Directive and the SEA Directive, which may be extended in exceptional cases.

    • Article 8 – Protected species

If the implementation of plans or the construction, operation, or decommissioning of projects occasionally leads to the killing or disturbance of birds protected under the Birds Directive or other species protected under the Habitats Directive, this shall not be deemed to be the deliberate killing or disturbance of protected species, provided that the plan or project includes appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and takes into account the best available technologies to avoid such killing or disturbance.

A similar provision already exists in the Renewable Energy Directive for energy transition projects outside acceleration areas: according to this provision, the killing or disturbance of protected species is not considered intentional if the necessary mitigation measures have been taken within the framework of the project (cf Art 16b (2)). An even further simplification is planned for energy transition projects in acceleration areas: it is assumed that the project does not violate species protection prohibitions, provided that the regulations and mitigation measures specified for the respective acceleration area are complied with (cf Art 15c (1)).

In summary, the proposal contains a package of measures that has the potential to speed up and simplify procedures. Measures that are already familiar in some cases, including in national law, such as maximum time limits, substantive preclusion, or the establishment of overriding public interest, are supplemented by newer approaches. Particularly noteworthy are the simplifications with regard to the prohibition of killing in the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive (Article 8) and the possibility of using five-year-old data when preparing an environmental impact report (Article 4(5)). This would make things much easier in Austria. Although a period of five years corresponds to standard practice for mapping, case law generally applies the factual and legal situation at the time of the decision, so that updates are sometimes required at significantly shorter intervals.

It is also to be welcomed that the provision of sufficient resources to the authorities, which has often been mentioned in the context of speeding up procedures, has been included in the regulation as a principle (Art 12). However, whether the provision can have any practical effect beyond a mere programmatic objective will depend not least on the possibilities – in particular budgetary – of the individual Member States.