uvp-verfahrenspruefung

/umweltrecht:uvp-verfahrenspruefung

Purpose

The EIA is a non-self-standing procedural part of a lead procedure (e.g., immission control permit, water law permit, planning approval). It is substantively decisive under environmental law because procedural errors under Section 4 UmwRG can lead to the annulment of the lead decision – even without infringement of subjective rights. This skill reviews the EIA obligation, preliminary assessment, procedural steps and consequences of procedural errors.

Inputs

Project type and scale (Annex 1 UVPG reference)
Site (protected areas, cumulative projects in the vicinity)
Status of the lead procedure (application, decision, action)
Preliminary assessment already carried out (date, result, documentation Section 7(7) UVPG)

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides Annex 1 number, cumulative constellations (Section 10 UVPG), relevant Federal Administrative Court and CJEU case law on the EIA Directive. Drafter reviews the EIA obligation (mandatory or preliminary assessment), conducts the preliminary assessment and classifies the procedural steps. Reviewer reviews Section 4 UmwRG consequences, standing and EU conformity.

Procedure

1. EIA obligation Section 5 UVPG in conjunction with Annex 1

Column	Consequence
"X"	EIA mandatory (Section 6 UVPG)
"A"	General preliminary assessment of the individual case (Section 7(1) UVPG)
"S"	Site-related preliminary assessment (Section 7(2) UVPG)

Cumulation rules Section 10 UVPG (cumulative projects), amendments Section 9 UVPG.

2. Preliminary assessment of the individual case Section 7 UVPG

Requirement	Content
Summarily review	Based on the criteria in Annex 3 UVPG (project characteristics, site, environmental impacts)
Documentation	Section 7(7) UVPG: comprehensible, in writing, before the lead decision
Limited judicial review	Section 5(3) UmwRG: plausibility review
Publication	Section 5(2) UVPG: the determination of the EIA obligation must be published

Standard: Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 25.06.2014 – 9 A 1/13, BVerwGE 150, 92 [unverifiziert – prüfen]; CJEU, judgment of 07.11.2018 – C-461/17 (Holohan), ECLI:EU:C:2018:883 [unverifiziert – prüfen].

3. Procedural steps of the formal EIA

Step	Provision
Information on the anticipated scope of investigation (scoping)	Section 15 UVPG
EIA report of the project developer	Section 16 UVPG
Participation of authorities	Section 17 UVPG
Public participation	Section 18 UVPG
Cross-border participation	Sections 54 et seq. UVPG
Summary presentation and reasoned assessment	§§ 24, 25 UVPG
Consideration in the competent authority's decision	§ 25(2) UVPG

4. Integration into the competent authority procedure

Immission control law: § 1(2) of the 9th BImSchV links the procedures together; the immission control licensing procedure absorbs the EIA.
Water law: § 11 WHG in conjunction with UVPG.
Plan approval: §§ 72 et seq. VwVfG.

5. Legal consequences of procedural errors § 4 UmwRG

Error	Consequence
EIA / preliminary assessment completely omitted	§ 4(1) sentence 1 no. 1 UmwRG: absolute ground for annulment
Defective preliminary assessment	§ 4(1) sentence 2 UmwRG: treated as equivalent
Other procedural errors	§ 4(1a) UmwRG: annulment only if there is causal influence
Standing to sue	§ 4(3) UmwRG: also applies to affected individuals; association action § 2 UmwRG

Standard: CJEU, judgment of 07.11.2013 – C-72/12 (Altrip), ECLI:EU:C:2013:712 [unverifiziert – prüfen]; BVerwG, judgment of 17.12.2013 – 4 A 1/13, BVerwGE 148, 353 [unverifiziert – prüfen].

Sources and citation style

Binding: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statute

§ 5 UVPG (EIA obligation)
§ 7 UVPG (preliminary assessment)
§ 9 UVPG (amendments)
§ 10 UVPG (cumulation)
§ 15 UVPG (scoping)
§ 16 UVPG (EIA report)
§ 18 UVPG (public participation)
§§ 24, 25 UVPG (presentation and assessment)
Annex 1 UVPG
Annex 3 UVPG
§ 4 UmwRG (procedural errors)
§ 2 UmwRG (association action)
EIA Directive 2011/92/EU

Commentaries

Hoppe/Beckmann, UVPG, 5th ed. 2018, § 5 marginal no. 1 et seq., § 7 marginal no. 1 et seq.
Sangenstedt, in: Landmann/Rohmer, Umweltrecht (loose-leaf, as of: 2024), § 7 UVPG marginal no. 50 et seq.
Fellenberg/Schiller, in: Landmann/Rohmer, § 4 UmwRG marginal no. 1 et seq.
Schink, in: Schink/Reidt/Mitschang, UVPG/UmwRG, 2018, § 4 UmwRG marginal no. 10 et seq.

Case law (`[unverifiziert – prüfen in Beck-Online/juris/BVerwG-/curia-Datenbank]`)

BVerwG, judgment of 25.06.2014 – 9 A 1/13, BVerwGE 150, 92 (preliminary assessment plausibility check) [unverifiziert – prüfen]
BVerwG, judgment of 17.12.2013 – 4 A 1/13, BVerwGE 148, 353 (§ 4 UmwRG annulment) [unverifiziert – prüfen]
CJEU, judgment of 07.11.2013 – C-72/12 (Altrip), ECLI:EU:C:2013:712 (procedural error / causality) [unverifiziert – prüfen]
CJEU, judgment of 07.11.2018 – C-461/17 (Holohan), ECLI:EU:C:2018:883 (scope of EIA) [unverifiziert – prüfen]
CJEU, judgment of 15.10.2015 – C-137/14 (Commission/Germany), ECLI:EU:C:2015:683 (substantive preclusion / standing to sue) [unverifiziert – prüfen]

Output format

GUTACHTEN — UVP-Prüfung
<Mandat-Kürzel> — <Datum>

I.   Sachverhalt
     Vorhaben: <Typ, Dimensionierung>
     Standort: <Schutzgebiete, kumulative Vorhaben>
     Trägerverfahren: <BImSchG / WHG / Planfeststellung>
     Stand: <Antrag / Bescheid / Klage>

II.  Frage(n)
     1. Besteht UVP-Pflicht?
     2. Ist die durchgeführte Vorprüfung nachvollziehbar?
     3. Welche Verfahrensschritte stehen aus?
     4. (Falls Bescheid) Welche Konsequenzen hat ein Verfahrensfehler nach § 4 UmwRG?

III. Kurzantwort
     <ein Satz>

IV.  Rechtliche Bewertung (Gutachtenstil)
     1. UVP-Pflicht § 5 UVPG
        - Anlage 1 Nr. <…>, Spalte <X / A / S>
        - § 9 Änderungen / § 10 Kumulation
     2. Vorprüfung § 7 UVPG (sofern Spalte A/S)
        - Kriterien Anlage 3
        - Dokumentationspflicht § 7 Abs. 7
        - Plausibilitätskontrolle § 5 Abs. 3 UmwRG
     3. Verfahrensschritte
        - Scoping § 15 — UVP-Bericht § 16 — Beteiligung §§ 17, 18 — Bewertung §§ 24, 25
     4. Integration in Trägerverfahren
        - § 1 Abs. 2 9. BImSchV / § 11 WHG / Planfeststellung
     5. (Falls Bescheid) Verfahrensfehler § 4 UmwRG
        - absoluter Aufhebungsgrund (§ 4 Abs. 1)
        - Kausalitätsfehler (§ 4 Abs. 1a)
        - Klagebefugnis § 4 Abs. 3, § 2 UmwRG

V.   Gesamtergebnis
     <…>

VI.  Risiken / offene Punkte
     - Kumulative Vorhaben im 5-km-Umkreis
     - FFH-Vorprüfung parallel
     - Bekanntmachung § 5 Abs. 2 UVPG

VII. Risikoeinstufung
     [🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴]

VIII. Quellenverzeichnis
     <gem. zitierweise.md>

Risks / typical errors

Preliminary assessment without documentation § 7(7) UVPG → ground for annulment under § 4 UmwRG.
Cumulation under § 10 UVPG overlooked → Project below the threshold becomes subject to EIA due to neighbouring projects.
Column A/S confused → wrong review standard under Annex 3.
§ 4(1) UmwRG and § 4(1a) UmwRG confused → action fails on causality-error argument, although an absolute ground for annulment existed.
CJEU requirements (Altrip, Holohan) ignored → interpretation in conformity with the Directive missed.
Standing of individuals not recognised under § 4(3) UmwRG → action dismissed as inadmissible too early.