1 / 21

The Implementation of International obligations in EU and its Member States

The Implementation of International obligations in EU and its Member States. From an environmental law perspective Presentation at PhD seminar, Lund’s University, 15 March 2018 Jan Darpö, Uppsala Universitet. “ Environmental Democracy”. Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration

colleenk
Download Presentation

The Implementation of International obligations in EU and its Member States

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 Implementation of International obligations in EU and its Member States From an environmental law perspective Presentation at PhD seminar, Lund’s University, 15 March 2018 Jan Darpö, Uppsala Universitet

  2. “Environmental Democracy” Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.

  3. The Aarhus Convention THREE PILLARS • Art. 4-5: Environmental Information… • Art. 6-8: Public Participation… • Art. 9:…Access to Justice…

  4. UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters UN Doc. ECE/CEP/43 (1998), signed in Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998. 38 International Legal Materials (1999) 515. • As of Oct-17; 47 Parties (ratifications) = EU and all its MS + EECCA (not Russia)… • PRTR (36 Parties) and GMO amendment (31 Parties)

  5. Compliance Mechanism Article 15 and Decision I/7 (2004); Review of Compliance • Compliance Committee (CC); independent and impartial experts nominated by the Parties and Public • The Public Trigger, open sessions • Recommendations (“decisions”) • Report to MoP; advice & recommendations, ask for strategy, declaration of non-compliance, cautions, suspension…

  6. “Cases” in Compliance Committee http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ C/2004/01: Kazakhstan C/2004/03; Ukraine – “Permits”, pipe-line decisions, governmental statements/funding, EIA procedure… C/2005/11; Belgium – A2J and planning law, NGO standing C/2006/18; Denmark – Endangered species, (HD), decisions on culling rooks, private person and prosecution C/2008/23, 27, 33; UK – costs C/2008/32 Part II: EU and Reg 1367/06

  7. Task Force on Access to Justice

  8. PP & A2J in EU law Article 9(3) EUs declaration on approval: In particular, the European Community also declares that the legal instruments in force (…) do not cover fully the implementation of the obligations resulting from Article 9 (3) of the Convention as they relate to administrative and judicial procedures to challenge acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities other than the institutions of the European Community as covered by Article 2 (2)(d) of the Convention, and that, consequently, its Member States are responsible for the performance of these obligations at the time of approval of the Convention by the European Community and will remain so unless and until the Community, in the exercise of its powers under the EC Treaty, adopts provisions of Community law covering the implementation of those obligations.

  9. A substantial body of case law • C-237/07 Janecek (2008): Air quality and A2J… • C-263/09 DLV (2010): ENGO standing… • C-115/09 Trianel (2011); ”Schütznormtheorie”… • C-240/09 Slovak Brown Bear I (2011): Art. 9.3 and EU… • C-128/09 Boxus, C-182/10 Solvay (2011): EIA and “specific legislative acts”… • C-260/11 Edwards (2013): Costs in the UK… • C-72/12 Altrip (2013): EIA and A2J… • C-416/10 Križan (2013): Effective remedies… • C-404/13 ClientEarth (2014): Air quality and A2J… • C-243/15 Slovak Brown Bear II (2016): Article 47 CFR… • C-529/15 Gert Folk (2017): WFD and standing… • C-664/15 Protect (2017): Art. 9.2 AC & Article 47 EUCFR…

  10. Rights and interests… Article 47 of the EU Charter (EUCFR)… Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in complian-ce with the conditions laid down in this Article. Article 19 Treaty of the EU (TEU) Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law.

  11. C-115/09 Trianel (2011) It follows more generally that the last sentence of the third paragraph of Article 10a of Directive 85/337 must be read as meaning that the ‘rights capable of being impaired’ which the ENGO are supposed to enjoy must necessarily include the rules of national law implementing EU envir-onment law and the rules of EU environment law having direct effect. C-115/09 Trianel [2011], para. 48

  12. C-240/09 Slovak Brown Bear (2011) It is, however, for the referring court to interpret, to the fullest extent possible, the procedural rules relating to the conditions to be met in order to bring administrative or judicial proceedings in accordance with the objectives of Article 9(3) of that convention and the objective of effective judicial protection of the rights conferred by EU law, in order to enablean ENGO, such as the LZ, to challenge before a court a decision taken following administrative proceedings liable to be contrary to EU environmental law. C-240/09 Slovak Brown Bear [2011], para. 51

  13. Not direct effect, but still… 55. However, if such a compliant interpretation were to be found to be impossible, it would then be for the referring court to disapply,(…), the rule of national procedural law… 58. (…) that Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that a ENGO must be able to contest before a court a decision granting a permit for a project that may be contrary to the obligation to prevent the deterioration of the status of bodies of water as set out in Article 4 of Directive 2000/60. C-404/15 Protect (2017), para. 54-58

  14. Conclusions • Directive provisions which are unconditional and sufficiently precise have direct effect = national provisions must be disapplied..! • Obligations (and Rights)… • ENGOs must be afforded such ”rights/obligations ; C-404/13 ClientEarth (2014); C-243/15 LZ II (2016)  Article 47 EUCFR, cf. Article 19 TEU (the Principle of Judicial Protection & Effet Utile…

  15. Mixed agreements Art 9.2: List SIE Art 9.3 EU: EIA, IED MS: IL+XX XX XX

  16. The EUs Janus Face • Indirect action: Very generous attitude when it comes to access to national courts, Art 267 TFEU… • Indirect action: Extremely reluctant to allow individuals/organisations to take action directly to the CJEU; C-583/11 P, Inuit TapiriitKanatami(2013) C-404/12 P SNM (2015) = Plaumann still going strong..!

  17. AG Kokott in Trianel “However, like a Ferrari with its doors locked shut, an intensive system of review is of little practical help if the system itself is totally inaccessible for certain categories of action.” C-115/09 Trianel [2011], AGs opinion para. 77

  18. Different procedural system Adm court General court Adm appeal- body/tribunal Authority/ Permit body

  19. Key issues on A2J • Standing for individuals, groups and ENGOs… • Effectiveness; duration, suspensive effect, injunction (many cases “won in court, but lost on the ground”)… • Court fees, costs for lawyers, cost for experts (LPP), bonds, legal aid…

  20. Climate actions • Urgenda case in the Netherlands:886 members, reduction of CO2 by 25% in 2020… • Our Children’s Trust in Washington and several more actions in USA… • Greenpeace: Philippines, Pacific Ocean, Norway; opening oil fields in Barents Sea… • Klimaatzaak in Belgium: 9,000 claimants, 40% reduction of GHG in 2040… • Magnolia-case in Sweden: 178 claimants challenges the sell-out of Vattenfall’s coal mines in Germany… http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/

  21. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING..! www.jandarpo.se

More Related