SU and Wild Ireland Defence CLG v An Coimisiún Pleanála and Others (C-27/25)

Judgment of 16 Jul 2026

law://eu/cjeu/2025/c-27-25/para_57@2026-11-13

57The Court has also found that Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive and Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as requiring Member States to establish, for each SPA, individual conservation objectives and conservation measures for all protected species and their habitat. In doing so, Member States are responsible for defining priorities according to the significance of those measures for achieving conservation objectives in respect of all those species (judgment of 12 September 2024, Elliniki Ornithologiki Etaireia and Others, C‑66/23, EU:C:2024:733, paragraph 59).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Case: C-27/25 · ECLI:EU:C:2026:596
Decided: 16 Jul 2026
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Court of Appeal (Ireland) (C‑27/25) and the High Court (Ireland) (C‑356/25)
Applicants: SU; Wild Ireland Defence CLG; Paddy Massey
Defendants: An Coimisiún Pleanála; Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and 10 more
Ireland; The Attorney General; notice party:; Knocknamona Windfarm Limited; An Coimisiún Pleanála; Ireland; The Attorney General; Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage; notice party:; Curns Energy Limited
Rapporteur: A. Kornezov
Advocate General: J. Kokott
Bench: 5 judges
I. Jarukaitis, M. Condinanzi, N. Jääskinen, R. Frendo, A. Kornezov
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62025CJ0027

Topics

Environment

History · 1 version

16 Jul 2026Reading

Connections

See on a map

Cites 1: Elliniki Ornithologiki Etaireia and Others v Ypourgos Esoterikon and Others (C-66/23)