You are here:

Key facts of the case:

X appealed against a decision ([2013] EWCA Civ 920, [2013] P.T.S.R. 1194) dismissing their challenges to the Secretary of State's proposals for the high speed rail project, HS2. The Secretary of State had issued a Command Paper or "next steps document" (NSD) detailing the project and proposing a Hybrid Bill procedure in Parliament to implement the scheme. X argued that (1) NSD should have been preceded by a strategic environmental assessment under Directive 2001/42 (the SEA Directive) as it was a "plan or programme" within art.3, and the SEA Directive had to be interpreted to ensure conformity with the Aarhus Convention 2001 art.7; (2) the Hybrid Bill procedure did not comply with the requirements of Directive 2011/92 (the EIA Directive), as the party whipping of the vote and the limited opportunity to examine the environmental information during the Parliamentary process prevented effective public participation as required by art.6(4).