THE STATE has urged the Supreme Court to refer to the European Court of Justice key issues in a legal dispute as to whether An Bord Pleanála’s approval for the €317 million Galway city outer bypass road was invalid.
The State wanted the road to be built, but it was “vital” this was done in accordance with law and the requirements of EU law, Michael Collins SC, for the State, said yesterday.
The Attorney General had advised that the go-ahead by the board for the road did not comply with the requirements of the EU habitats directive, but the board disputed that, Mr Collins said. In those circumstances, the State believed the European Court of Justice should clarify the relevant provisions of the directive.
Both the State and environmental campaigner Peter Sweetman claim the board’s approval breaches the habitats directive in that it allows for destruction of part of a protected limestone pavement area in the candidate Lough Corrib special area of conservation site (SAC) to facilitate the scheme.
The board, however, contends that the destruction of 1.5 hectares of limestone paving within 85 hectares of a site containing limestone paving does not constitute a significant adverse impact on the “integrity” of the site within the meaning of article 6.3 of the directive.
The five-judge Supreme Court yesterday began hearing arguments for and against referral to the European court at the opening of the appeal by the State and Mr Sweetman against the High Court’s refusal to overturn the go-ahead for construction of the bypass.
Those arguments are expected to conclude today.
In allowing the road project, the board found the road would have a “localised” severe impact on the candidate SAC site but would not adversely affect its “integrity”.
Mr Collins said the State believed that as the project involved the destruction of some protected limestone paving that could not naturally renew itself, that this breached article 6.3 of the habitats directive.
David Holland SC, for the board and Brian Murray SC, for the council, both argued there was no need to ask the European court to clarify article 6 as, they submitted, the board had acted lawfully and in accordance with the provisions of article 6.
