C-201/02, 7 January 2004. Decision was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by the HC on 12 February 2002 for interpretation of Directive 85/337/EEC in relation to the grant of a new consent for mining operations at Conygor Quarry without an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) being carried out. Para 32 sets out five questions for interpretation by the ECJ. Questions one and two consider the obligation to carry out an EIA assessment. Question three looks at the obligation to remedy the failure to carry out an EIA. Questions four and five question the ability of individuals to invoke the provisions of the Directive. ECJ ruled that competent authorities are obliged to carry out an EIA at each stage of the consent process. Individuals also have the authority to invoke Art 2(1) in conjunction with Arts1(2) and 4(2) of the Directive. Under Art 10 of the Directive, authorities must take out all measures possible to remedy a failure to carry out an assessment. Procedural rules are a matter for each member state. It is up to the national courts to determine where a consent already granted should be revoked or suspended in order to subject projects to an EIA. Full details of ruling are available post para 71. (See also Abs67537). View decision at www.curia.eu.int.