In 1985 Europe passed a law with a simple idea. Before you build something big, you work out what it will do to the people and the place around it, and you ask them.
The law lists the big things. Airports are on the list. It defines an airport as a place “intended to be used” for aircraft to arrive and depart. So the law was always about the flying, not just the tarmac.
In 1997 Europe added a rule for changes. Change a big project, even one already built, in a way that may cause significant harm, and someone has to look at it again.
So far, so sensible.
In the 1990s, a Belgian region decided to turn an old military airfield at Liège into a 24-hour freight hub. It signed a contract with a courier company, did some works, and the night flights began. The neighbours said freight went up 464 times. The neighbours stopped sleeping.
The neighbours sued, and the case reached the European Court of Justice, which ruled in 2008. The Belgian court asked three questions. One of them was a side question: is the contract itself a “project”?
Everyone in the room agreed: no. A contract is a piece of paper. A project is something you do on the ground. The Court said so in one sentence, citing nothing. Nobody had argued otherwise.
Then the Court got to the real questions, and the neighbours won. Works at an airport count even if you don’t lengthen the runway. And you must assess the extra flights the works make possible, because looking only at the concrete and ignoring the planes would be, in the Court’s word, “simplistic”.
Remember that word.
In 2011 a different airport came to the Court. Brussels Airport had been running for decades, since before the law existed. Its operating permit was renewed with nothing changed at all.
Was renewing that permit a “project”? The Court reached for the contract sentence from the Liège case. No works, no physical change, so no project. On those facts, fair enough.
But the sentence had moved. In Liège it answered: is a piece of paper a project? Now it was stretched to answer: is running an airport a project?
In 2012 a Belgian landfill was allowed to carry on until its existing permit ran out, under new conditions to bring it up to standard. No expansion, no extra years. Was that permission a “consent” to a project? The Court said: “As has been established”, a project means works, so no works, no consent. Whether there were any works, it left to the Belgian court. Nothing changed at the landfill, so the Court was never asked about a change.
In 2018, in a Dutch case about cattle and fertiliser, the Court looked back at the Brussels case and described what it had done there. It said it had “formulated the condition” about works. Formulated. Its word.
In 2019 a Belgian nuclear plant extended its life by ten years, with 700 million euro of works. This time the Court’s own Advocate General asked the obvious question: shouldn’t a big enough change count even without works? She said the works rule didn’t fit Europe’s international commitments, and the Court should drop it. She was the same Advocate General who had advised the Court in Liège, where the contract sentence began.
The Court didn’t answer her. There were works, so it was a project either way. It repeated “It follows from the case-law” and moved on. The question was asked, a Grand Chamber of the Court left it unanswered, and the formulated condition lived on.
In 2021 the European Commission wrote guidance. The Court, it said, had “consistently confirmed on several occasions” that a project means works. So works were, in its own word, “a prerequisite”. New formulation, tighter, and not from the Court this time! For changes to existing projects, it applied the rule “by analogy”. Translation: the Court had never ruled on a change made, without works, to a project already built, so the Commission borrowed the answer. Near enough, right?
Then, in the same document a few pages later, the Commission says any change, during or after execution of the project, that could do real harm has to be screened, meaning someone has to check whether it needs a full assessment. Any change. No mention of works. So that’s all perfectly clear now, right?
In 2026 a Member of the European Parliament, on a question we drafted, asked the Commission straight out about changes made after a project is built. It answered: a change without works “cannot be classified as a ‘project’”. The “by analogy” had disappeared.
But … the Commission didn’t say the change was not subject to the law, or that it didn’t need screening. It just said it wasn’t a “project”. And no court has ever said that a change to a finished project, adding harm without new concrete, escapes screening. Nobody has asked one.
Now come to Dublin.
The North Runway was assessed with its planes flying straight out. Permission was granted. Conditions were set. Everyone knew where the planes were going to go. Then the runway opened, and the planes turned on day one.
Today the departures put about 14,000 people newly under the flight path, and about 30,000 within 3 km of the official tracks. Nobody asked them about these routes. Nobody assessed the switch to the routes they live under.
And here’s the thing: the turn isn’t even needed. The planes could fly straight out, as assessed. They still can. Fewer people would be under them, and the airport wouldn’t lose a single flight.
The safety regulator, the IAA, approved the routes for safety, and says the environment isn’t its job. The planning authority, Fingal, says flight paths aren’t development and can’t be governed by a planning permission. And when the airport company, daa, asked to lift its passenger cap, it said that under European law it “cannot be screened in” for assessment. Because increasing the number of passengers, and therefore the number of flights, and therefore the noise falling on all those people… well, it doesn’t involve any new concrete.
So, here’s where we’ve landed. Europe passed a law to make sure big projects are assessed for their effect on people. In that law, an airport is a place where planes take off and land. And daa’s reading of that law is: Nobody can make us do anything about our plan to increase traffic over 30,000 people, along new routes for big noisy jet aircraft, that nobody assessed against the ones permitted. Why? Because we haven’t poured any concrete since we built the runway. That’s why!
Europe’s half of all that comes from one uncontested sentence about a contract in a case the neighbours won, the same case in which the Court called it “simplistic” to look at the concrete and ignore the planes.
Sources
- Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (the EIA Directive), Annex I, point 7 (construction of airports with a basic runway of 2,100 metres or more) and its footnote defining “airport” by reference to the 1944 Chicago Convention. EUR-Lex: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1985/337/oj
- International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Aerodromes, definition of “aerodrome” (an area “intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and surface movement of aircraft”). Available from ICAO by title
- Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC, inserting Annex II, point 13 (any change or extension of projects already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment). EUR-Lex: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1997/11/oj. The same words are now Annex II, point 13(a) of Directive 2011/92/EU: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/92/oj
- Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 28 February 2008, Abraham and Others, Case C-2/07 (Liège-Bierset airport: the agreement for the airport to run “24 hours per day and 365 days per year”; the three questions; the agreement not a “project”; works at an airport covered without lengthening the runway; the increase in activity to be assessed; “simplistic”). Curia: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-2/07
- Opinion of the Advocate General in Abraham and Others, Case C-2/07, 29 November 2007 (the residents’ account that freight volume rose “by a factor of 464”; the parties’ positions on the agreement). Curia: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-2/07
- Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 17 March 2011, Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Others, Case C-275/09 (renewal of Brussels Airport’s operating consent; no works, no project). Curia: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-275/09
- Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 19 April 2012, Pro-Braine and Others, Case C-121/11 (landfill operations continued under new conditions; “As has been established by the Court”). Curia: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-121/11
- Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 7 November 2018, Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment and Others, Joined Cases C-293/17 and C-294/17 (nitrogen deposition from farms; the Court “formulated the condition” on works in the Brussels case). Curia: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-293/17
- Opinion of the Advocate General in Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen, Case C-411/17, 29 November 2018 (Doel nuclear power station: the investment plan of around EUR 700 million; the proposal that the works requirement be dropped). Curia: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-411/17
- Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), judgment of 29 July 2019, Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen, Case C-411/17 (the ten-year extension of the Doel reactors with works; “It follows from the case-law of the Court”). Curia: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-411/17
- European Commission, Commission notice regarding application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive to changes and extension of projects, Annex I.24 and Annex II.13(a), including main concepts and principles related to these (2021/C 486/01), Official Journal C 486, 3 December 2021 (“consistently confirmed on several occasions”; “a prerequisite”; “By analogy”; the screening of “any change or extension” under Annex II.13(a)). EUR-Lex: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021XC1203(01)
- European Parliament, written question E-002720/2026 to the European Commission, “Material post-construction operational changes and the scope of Directive 2011/92/EU”, 1 July 2026, drafted by NRTG, and the answer given on behalf of the European Commission, 25 August 2026 (a change without works “cannot be classified as a ‘project’”). Question: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2026-002720_EN.html; answer: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2026-002720-ASW_EN.html
- An Bord Pleanála, decision granting permission for the North Runway, ref. PL06F.217429 (Fingal County Council reg. ref. F04A/1755), August 2007, with its conditions, and the Environmental Impact Statement on which it was granted (2004, with its 2005 addendum), which assessed departures flying straight out. On the planning file for F04A/1755 at Fingal County Council; NRTG holds copies
- AIP Ireland (published by the Irish Aviation Authority, now by AirNav Ireland), Dublin Airport Runway 28R standard instrument departure charts as published for the North Runway’s opening in August 2022 (departures turning from the end of the runway). Current edition: https://www.airnav.ie/air-traffic-management/aeronautical-information-management/aip-package; NRTG holds a copy of the 2022 edition
- NRTG, Quantifying Noise Impact of Dublin Airport’s North Runway Departure Routes: An EIA-Conformance Gap Analysis, version 1.0, 15 April 2026 (13,923 residents newly overflown within 1.5 km each side of the track, against 998 for a route consistent with the assessment; about 30,000 residents within 3 km each side of the routes flown). Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19567671
- Irish Aviation Authority, letter from its Chief Executive to the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications, “Flightpaths at Dublin Airport”, committee ref. JCTC-33-1126, 7 November 2023 (“In principle, the missed approach procedure for 28L could turn left …” so that departures from 28R could continue straight ahead). NRTG holds a copy
- International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Manual on Simultaneous Operations on Parallel or Near-Parallel Instrument Runways (SOIR), Doc 9643, Second Edition, 2020 (the divergence between tracks required for parallel-runway operations, which can be achieved by turning the missed approach instead of the departures). Available from ICAO by title. NRTG’s analysis applying it to Dublin, showing straight-ahead departures with no loss of runway capacity, was set out in its submission to the Aircraft Noise Competent Authority’s consultation, ref. NRTG/2026/qfb, September 2026: https://www.dublin-north-runway.com/anca-noise-consultation-submission/
- Irish Aviation Authority, letter to NRTG, “RWY 28R SID: Dublin Airport”, 15 August 2026 (the response “does not comment on areas outside of the IAA scope”, including environmental impact assessment and aircraft noise). NRTG holds a copy
- Fingal County Council, planning report on enforcement file ENF22/166B (flight paths at Dublin Airport), 18 September 2026, and the Chief Executive’s Order of 22 September 2026 deciding not to take enforcement action (flight paths “are not development” and are “not capable of being governed by a planning permission”; the North Runway “became operational on the 24th of August 2022”). Sent to NRTG as complainant, 24 and 29 September 2026; NRTG holds copies
- daa plc, application to the Minister for Transport under the Dublin Airport (Passenger Capacity) Act 2026 for an order on the passenger capacity conditions, Application Report, August 2026, with cover letter of 5 August 2026 (“Under European law, this application cannot be screened in for EIA”; the order “would not involve any works or other interventions”). Published by the Dublin Inquirer, 21 August 2026: https://www.dublininquirer.com/now-that-he-can-do-it-daa-has-formally-written-to-the-minister-asking-him-to-lift-the-dublin-airport-passenger-cap/