Going by the below statement, the court wouldn't need to wait...

Going by the below statement, the court wouldn't need to wait for the CRMA to come into force, because it's upcoming legislation:

"The fact that there is new legislation in progress concerning the issue speaks against leave to appeal because the value of a precedent in that case is soon overplayed."

However, you could look at it another way: If the court was indeed taking the CRMA into consideration, then perhaps the confusion is caused by the legislation being selective in which projects the law applies to; it isn't all-encompassing. Talga has not yet been named a strategic project. How then could the Supreme Court know that this new legislation would apply to Talga? That could be the reason why the court is waiting. An overhaul of environmental codes for member states is not something that happens every day, so perhaps they want to see where they stand because "the value of the precedent would soon be overplayed" if they act prematurely.

Of course, this would only occur if the court found something in the case that would lead to appeals being granted, except that the CRMA would shortly overrule.

We just crossed 7 months. A small gold mine with many similarities to Vittangi recently had appeals rejected by the Supreme Court, but it took 10 months. So, we aren't exactly in uncharted territory, as frustrating as it is.