(B)(i) that such unit shall be located at an organizational level and shall have an organizational status within such State agency comparable to that
of other major organizational units
of such agency, or (ii) in the case
of an agency described in clause (1)(B)(ii), either that such unit shall be so located and have such status, or that the director
of such unit shall be the executive officer
of such State agency; except that, in the case
of a State which has designated only one State agency pursuant to clause (1)
of this subsection, such State may, if it so desires, assign responsibility for the part
of the plan under which vocational REHABILITATION services are provided for the blind to one organizational unit
of such agency, and assign responsibility for the rest
of the plan to another organizational unit
of such agency, with the provisions
of this clause applying separately to each
of such units; provide for financial participation by the State, or if the State so elects, by the State and local agencies to meet the amount
of the non - Federal share; provide that the plan shall be in effect in all political subdivisions, except that in the case
of any activity which, in the
judgment of the Secretary, is likely to assist in promoting the vocational REHABILITATION
of substantially larger numbers
of handicapped
individuals or groups
of handicapped
individuals the Secretary may waive compliance with the requirement herein that the plan be in effect in all political subdivisions
of the State to the extent and for such period as may be provided in accordance with regulations prescribed by him, but only if the non - Federal share
of the * cost
of such vocational REHABILITATION services is met from funds made available by a local agency (including, to the extent permitted by such regulations, funds contributed to such agency by a
private agency, organization, or
individual);
In that regard, it has already been established, in paragraphs 32 and 36
of the present
judgment, that Directive 85/337 confers on the
individuals concerned a right to have the effects on the environment
of the project under examination assessed by the competent services, and that pecuniary damage, in so far as it is a direct economic consequence
of the environmental effects
of a public or
private project, is covered by the objective
of protection pursued by Directive 85/337.
Unfortunately, the Court's mis - direction on the judicial reasoning protecting
private life rights and sexual identity started by Dudgeon, is a shortcoming
of the
judgment, as the Court fails to engage with the impact that mere criminalisation has on gay and lesbian
individuals, even without enforcement.