1 / 11

The Commission – A sheep in wolf’s clothing..?

This presentation discusses the use of infringement proceedings as a tool to enforce EU environmental law. It focuses on the controversies surrounding the protection of wolves in Sweden and the weaknesses of the infringement procedure. Lessons learned and the urgency of PR proceedings in environmental cases are also highlighted.

brendajones
Download Presentation

The Commission – A sheep in wolf’s clothing..?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Commission – A sheep in wolf’s clothing..? Infringements proceedings as a legal tool for the enforcement of EU law on the environment Presentation at the workshop Meeting the European Commission and Academia Brussels 17 June 2016 Professor Jan Darpö Faculty of Law. Uppsala Universitet

  2. Wolf Controversies • Strict protection under Bern Convention and EUs Habitats Directive… • Re-established in Scandinavia, around 350 animals today, strong conflicts…

  3. Swedish Wolf Hunt • 2010 & 2011; Licensed hunt, no ENGO standing, LFN from COM • 2012; RO from COM = No hunt… • 2013; Licensed hunt, but ENGO standing according to Slovak Brown Bear (C-240/09), decision quashed… • 2014; Quashed again…

  4. Swedish Wolf Hunt • 2015; Appeals ban introduced, IP2 from COM on A2J, renewed RO on IP1 • Decision on licensed hunt, no action from the COM, appeals but hunt performed… • Decision on licensed hunt, no action from the COM… • HFD in “appeals ban case”, decision quashed, new leg and IP2 withdrawn…

  5. Effective use of IP • Dir 96/61/EG (IPPC), Article 5.1 (21 IED); reconsidering & updating… • ”2007-regulation”; Information  appropriate measures… • Proposal heavily criticized…   • Little happened, unwillingness, lack of resources… • IP and to CJEU in December 2010…

  6. Effective use of IP, tbc… • From 191 to 29 (out of 1 034 installations)... • Judgement in March 2012 (C-607/10) • New lawsuit in December 2013… • From 29 to 2 (1) installations… • Judgement in December 2014 (C-243/13) = € 2,000,000 + daily fines €4,000…

  7. Weaknesses of IP; 1 POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING • Loss of credibility..!! • Unpredictable; small & big, differences between countries, personal ambitions… • Different areas of EU law; business, telecom, social security, free movement   environment; private actors and national watchdogs   ENGOs…

  8. Weaknesses of IP; 2 CIRCULAR DECISION-MAKING • SEPA and the courts… • Environmental law and soft instruments… • COM Guidance, LCIE Guidelines… • CIS under WFD, Water Directors… • Guides COM action, never beyond…

  9. Weaknesses of IP; 3 LACK OF TRANSPARENCY • Mystery making of EU… • Differences between countries, the Nordic doctrine of openness… • Efta and ESA… • Technical or political enforcement..?

  10. Lessons to be learned..? • A point of no return when entering the formal stages of IP..? • Consistency, uniformity, consequence, guidelines… • Transparency in the formal stages… • But most importantly… The urgency of PR proceedings in environmental cases, as illustrated in the SWEDISH WOLF CASE…

  11. ….and finally… THANK YOU FOR LISTENING..!    jan.darpo@jur.uu.se www.jandarpo.se/ In English

More Related