The case was referred to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling by the Swedish Högsta Domstolen (Supreme Court). In particular the national Court asked the ECJ to determine whether article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35 to bring it into line with the Aarhus Convention, allows ‘the public concerned’ unrestricted access to the courts when that public has participated in the procedure for planning consent. Advocate General Sharpston concluded that earlier participation does not of itself guarantee unrestricted access to justice by ‘the public concerned’. However, a non-governmental organisation promoting environmental protection which meets the definition of ‘the public concerned’ does have an automatic right of access to justice under article 10a. Moreover, AG Sharpston adhered the view that Article 10a of Directive 85/337 as amended is to be interpreted as precluding a national provision requiring an organisation to have a minimum number of members in order to qualify as ‘the public concerned’.