According to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, the scope of application of the SUP Directive and thus its Art. 3 is broad, but restrictions are to be interpreted narrowly. The relevant legal questions have now been clarified by the court; as a result, the scope of application of the SUP directive has been defined more precisely, but at the same time has also been generously expanded. In case of doubt, it can be assumed that there is an obligation to carry out a strategic environmental assessment when drawing up, changing or canceling plans and programs. If a member state wants to make use of the exceptions under Art. 3 Abs. 3 or 4 of the SUP Directive, it must be aware of the strict requirements for the description of such plans and the possible justification effort associated with this. Typifications and generalizations are generally not permitted when determining certain types of plans and programs. Compliance with the directive is most likely to be achieved if an exemption from the obligation to carry out an environmental assessment is combined with at least a case-by-case review of likely significant environmental impacts.