This decision by the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice is characterized by an unusual factual situation resulting in a legal dilemma for the referring court. That court had to decide whether to annul a programme adopted in accordance with one EU directive because no environmental assessment had been carried out as required by another directive. The problem was that if the programme were annulled, the Member State would be in breach of the first directive; whereas if it was upheld the breach of the other directive would persist. The judgment raises important questions of national procedural autonomy, whether procedural requirements can be overridden by substantive considerations and, more generally, whether there is a right for Member States to derogate from directives. It is argued that by allowing the Member State to temporarily uphold the validity of the programme the Court has reached the correct conclusion, albeit on the basis of an unsatisfactory argument.