- within Law Department Performance, Antitrust/Competition Law, Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
EU
CONSULTATION OPENS ON THE PREPARATION OF THE EUROPE'S POST-2030 CLIMATE POLICY FRAMEWORK
On 9 February 2026, the European Commission launched two public consultations on the preparation of the EU's post-2030 climate policy framework. The consultations will focus respectively on the design and implementation of national targets from 2030 onwards and the use of international credits to meet the EU's 2040 climate target.
Ireland
CABINET APPROVES PRIORITY DRAFTING OF THE DUBLIN AIRPORT (PASSENGER CAPACITY) BILL 2026
On 10 February 2026, the Minister for Transport secured Cabinet approval for the priority drafting of the Dublin Airport (Passenger Capacity) Bill. The bill will empower the Minister to make an order to amend or revoke the 32 million passenger cap at Dublin Airport, following engagement with An Coimisiún Pleanála (the "Commission"). The Minister must take the outcome of any environmental assessments conducted by the Commission into account when making an order.
MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT TO COMMENCE PREPARATION OF CIRCULAR ECONOMY STRATEGY
Section 7 of the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022 was commenced on 26 January 2026. The Minister for the Environment is obliged to prepare and submit a circular economy strategy for Government approval within six months of this date. The strategy will set targets in respect of the following sectors: construction, agriculture, retail, packaging, textiles and electronic equipment, in addition to other sectors as the Minister considers appropriate. Targets will relate to material resource consumption, the use of re-usable products, levels of repair and re-use and the maintenance and optimised use of goods.
Following the publication of this strategy, a new strategy will be prepared and submitted every three years. The Minister must report annually on implementation and progress.
Domestic judgments
SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES SCOPE OF OBLIGATIONS ON PUBLIC BODIES UNDER THE CLIMATE ACTION AND LOW CARBON DEVELOPMENT ACT 2015
On 4 February 2026, Chief Justice O'Donnell delivered a landmark ruling for the Supreme Court in Coolglass Wind Farm Limited -v- An Bord Pleanála [2026] IESC 5. The decision clarifies the obligation imposed on public bodies under section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, (the "Climate Act"). Section 15(1) obliges public bodies to "in so far as practicable, perform [their] functions in a manner consistent with" specified climate plans and policies, including the current Climate Action Plan. The High Court found this was a very demanding obligation, falling just short of unconditional compliance, and its decision effectively introduced a strong presumption in favour of granting permission for renewable energy projects.
However, the Supreme Court rejected that interpretation and adopted a more calibrated and context-sensitive approach. Chief Justice O'Donnell emphasised that section 15(1) obligations are stated "at a level of considerable generality" reflecting their application across a wide range of public bodies and functions. Where a plan or policy lacks detailed or prescriptive requirements, decision‑makers are entitled to operate within a broad spectrum of lawful outcomes.
The Court further noted that given section 15(1) applies across the planning system, individual planning decisions are made against a background in which climate policy is already embedded, entitling decision‑makers to proceed on the basis that compliance with an up‑to‑date development plan will normally satisfy section 15(1). However, where section 15(1) is expressly relied on in support of an application, a planning authority must be able to explain - albeit usually briefly - why the decision reached is consistent with its section 15 obligations.
Significantly, the Supreme Court rejected any "traffic light system" approach whereby climate-friendly projects must proceed unless impracticable, while emissions-generating projects must be refused. The Court stressed that proper planning and sustainable development remain central to all planning decisions, and that section 15 does not displace the established planning framework. The Supreme Court noted further that national climate objectives are framed as net, economy‑wide targets, meaning that the refusal of permission for a renewable energy project, or the grant of permission for an emissions‑generating project, may still be consistent with the achievement of national climate objectives.
The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the Commission's decision on narrower grounds, finding that it had failed to consider whether the climate benefits of the proposed development required or justified the exercise of its statutory power to grant permission notwithstanding a material contravention of the development plan. The matter will now be remitted to the Commission to reconsider that question in light of section 15(1), following submissions from the parties.
SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE MANDAMUS MUST BE ORDERED IN RESPECT OF THE STATUTORY FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
The Supreme Court found that where an order of mandamus is sought to compel a local authority to carry out its statutory obligations (in this case preparing a local area plan), the Court is obliged to make this order except in extremely limited circumstances.
Local authorities have a constitutional obligation to exercise their functions in accordance with the law. Failing to enforce this obligation undermines the rule of law and separation of powers. Exceptions can only be made where a local authority establishes that carrying out the function is close to impossible. Separate judgments were issued by Mr. Justice Woulfe and Mr. Justice Collins. Both Justices were sceptical about arguments seeking to establish impossibility on the basis of a lack of resources.
Following the hearing, the section of the 2000 Act which imposed the relevant statutory obligation on the local authority was repealed and replaced under the 2024 Act. The parties have been invited to make submissions on the orders to be made in light of this. It was noted that the repeal raises the question as to whether an order of mandamus might now be considered inappropriate or futile.
HIGH COURT DISMISSES CHALLENGE AGAINST STRATEGIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ("SHD") CENTRED ON CAPACITY OF LOCAL WASTEWATER NETWORK
This case concerned a judicial review of an SHD application for 289 houses and a crèche in Ennis, Co Clare. The applicant challenged the decision on the basis of issues relating to the capacity of the wastewater network operated by Uisce Éireann ("UÉ"). The applicant claimed the planning application was invalid because a letter from UÉ stated that wastewater connection for the development was "feasible subject to upgrades." Justice Farrell rejected the interpretation that connection can only be considered feasible where it is capable of immediate implementation. She held this would be too prescriptive and would obstruct statutory intention. The capacity position is an evolving situation, and it is for UÉ to determine how trade-offs in this area should be managed.
The Commission imposed a condition requiring the developer to enter into a wastewater collection agreement with UÉ before development commences. However, the applicant argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to grant permission where upgrades to the wastewater treatment system were required without imposing a condition preventing development until those upgrades were completed. Justice Farrell rejected this argument. The Commission is not obliged to ensure that UÉ will comply with its obligations under national and EU law. Furthermore, it is not required to impose a condition delaying development until upgrade works are complete, even where those works are necessary for UÉ to satisfy its obligations. The Court held that it must be presumed that UÉ will comply with its obligations unless the contrary is shown.
This decision confirms that planning permission can be granted where UÉ has confirmed capacity exists subject to upgrade works, without requiring a condition that development cannot commence until those upgrades are complete. The standard condition requiring a connection agreement prior to commencement, combined with the presumption that UÉ will act lawfully, provides sufficient safeguards under Irish and EU law.
HIGH COURT UPHOLDS CHALLENGE AGAINST CLONGRIFFIN TO CITY CENTRE BUS CORRIDOR SCHEME (THE "CLONGRIFFIN SCHEME")
The applicant challenged the grant of permission for the Clongriffin Scheme in circumstances where a bus stop was to be placed directly outside of her home. The house opens directly onto the footpath where passengers would congregate. The applicant objected to the location of the proposed stop in submissions to the Commission, citing serious impacts on safety and privacy.
In a personal letter appended to a submission on the application, she wrote:
Justice Farrell upheld the challenge, finding that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision and mischaracterised serious privacy and security concerns as mere annoyance. This mischaracterisation meant the Commission failed to understand and correctly address the claimed breaches, rendering the reason for rejecting the applicant's submission legally defective: "By definition, if a submission is misunderstood, it cannot be properly rejected."
Parties will be invited to make submissions regarding the form of order, as the Court accepts it would be disproportionate to quash the entire scheme. The decision reiterates established case law that affected persons are entitled to know why a decision was made in general terms, to have sufficient information to consider an appeal or a judicial review, and to receive reasons which would allow the court to properly engage in that review.
This article contains a general summary of developments and is not a complete or definitive statement of the law. Specific legal advice should be obtained where appropriate.
