A69 motorway: the felling of trees has already been suspended until September

Décision de justice
Passer la navigation de l'article pour arriver après Passer la navigation de l'article pour arriver avant
Passer le partage de l'article pour arriver après
Passer le partage de l'article pour arriver avant

Following a petition from an environmental organisation, the urgent applications judge of the Conseil d’État found today that the felling of trees on the route of the planned motorway between Castres and Toulouse has been suspended since 31 March. Indeed, in accordance with the environmental approval granted on 1 March, no trees may be felled before September. In the absence of any urgency, the Conseil d’État dismissed the petition for suspension presented by the organisation.

An environmental protection organisation had appealed against the ruling by the urgent applications judge of the administrative court of Toulouse, who had rejected its petition for the suspension of tree felling operations on the route of the future A69 motorway between Castres, in Tarn, and Verfeil, in Haute-Garonne.


The urgent applications judge of the Conseil d’État restated that the right of every individual to live in a well-balanced and healthy environment, as proclaimed in the first article of the Environmental Charter, is a fundamental freedom that may be defended before an administrative judge. The organisation had based its petition on precisely that right.


However, the judge found that the tree felling operations shad been suspended on 31 March 2023, and would not resume before September 2023, in accordance with the environmental approval granted on 1 March 2023, relating to the “adaptation of the work schedule in view of environmental requirements (flora, fauna and wetlands)”. None of the evidence provided at the hearing or as part of the investigation called into question the actuality of the felling suspension until September.


In view of the suspension of the felling operations concerned, the urgent applications judge found that the condition of urgency required for an urgent application had not been fulfilled.

 

 

Read the decision n°472633