1 / 24

From Unibet to Protect – Direct effect of EU Environmental Law

This presentation delves into the concept of environmental democracy as a foundational principle under EU law. It discusses the active involvement of citizens in environmental decision-making processes and the mechanisms ensuring access to information, participation, and justice. The presentation highlights the key provisions of the Aarhus Convention, focusing on environmental information, public participation, and access to justice. Additionally, it touches upon relevant EU directives and case law that reinforce the importance of safeguarding environmental rights and interests through effective legal remedies and judicial procedures. The discussion sheds light on the evolving landscape of environmental law in the EU and emphasizes the rights guaranteed by the EU Charter and Treaty for ensuring adequate legal protection in environmental matters.

orcuttj
Download Presentation

From Unibet to Protect – Direct effect of EU Environmental Law

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. From Unibet to Protect – Direct effect of EU Environmental Law Presentation at EU Law Discussion Group, Lunds University, 14 March 2018 Jan Darpö, Uppsala Universitet

  2. Environmental “interests” Future generations Public NGOs Courts Supervisoryauthority Public concerned

  3. “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.

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

  5. A2J according to Aarhus • Article 9(2):Substantive and procedural legality of any decision, act, omission (permits)… Article 6.1.a – listed activities (Annex I) Article 6.1.b – Significant Effect on the Envt Access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent body (ECtHR)… • Article 9(3): Acts and omissions in breach of national law relating to the environment, administrative or judicial procedures… • Article 9(4): Adequate and effective reme-dies…injunctive relief…fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive…

  6. PP & A2J in EU law Article 9(2) Directive 2003/35/EC: EIA-directive (2011/92), IED (2010/75)… also in other directives, such as SEA (2001/42), WFD (2000/60), ELD (2004/35)… As well as Regulation 1367/2006 for internal review (C/2008/32 (Part II), draft findings)…

  7. 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.

  8. 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…

  9. 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.

  10. C‑432/05 Unibet (2007) In that regard, the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding an individual’s rights under Community law must be no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and must not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness)… C‑432/05 Unibet (2007), para. 43

  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. Notice on Access to Justice in Environmental Matters; EC 2017-04-28: • Standing… • Omissions… • Scope of review… • Effectiveness… • Costs and Remedies… Focusing on OBLIGATIONS of EU law…

  15. Interests & obligations amounts to “rights”… The public and other interests set out in EU environmental law and the related obligations placed on public authorities give rise to procedural and substantive rights for individuals and their associations. These rights need to be protected by national courts. Summary at para 35

  16. Individuals and ENGOs have such rights… Access to justice in environmental matters serves the purposes of enabling individuals and their associations to exercise rights conferred on them under EU environmental law. It also helps to ensure that the aims and obligations of EU environmental legislation are attained. Summary at para 31

  17. Standing… “the entitlement to bring a legal challenge to a court of law or other independent and impartial body in order to protect a right or interest of the claimant regarding the legality of a decision, act or omission of a public authority” (C22) • Individuals; Interests & Rights Individualpublic lawrights (Schutznormtheorie)… • ENGO criteria: Aim, Time of existence and activity, Openess…

  18. “Procedural legality” • Requirements for permit applications / Notifications… • Transparency and Participation in the procedure… • EIA, AIA, etc… • Burden of proof (Precautionary Principle)…

  19. “Substantive legality” C-127/02 Waddenzee (2004), p. 59 …are to authorise such activity only if they have made certain that it will not adversely affect the integrity of that site. That is the case where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects… C-71/14 East Sussex (2015), p. 58 …JR procedure (…) must enable the court or tribunal hearing an application for annulment of such a decision to apply effectively the relevant principles and rules of EU law when reviewing the lawfulness of the decision (…)

  20. The review procedure must be effectiveand provide with remedies • C-201/02 Delena Wells (2004)  C-399/14 GrüneLige Sachsen (2016) • C-137/14 Commission v Germany • C-237/07 Janecek (2008), C-72/12 Altrip(2013), C-404/13 ClientEart(2014)

  21. 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 & Efet Utile…

  22. Med lagstiftaren på åskådarplats C-263/09 DLV (2010), C-240/09 Den slovakiska brunbjörnen (2011), m.fl. • NJA 2012 s. 921 Åhuskustens bevarande… • MÖD 2011:46, MÖD 2012:47 oMÖD 2012:48, MÖD 2013:6, MÖD 2015:17, m.fl…. • Vargjakten: HFD beslut 2012-06-28  HFD 2015 ref. 79 … • HFD 2014:8 Änok… • HFDs dom 2018-01-29 i mål nr 593/17 Mikaelskyrkan…

  23. Rule of law..? • ”Vi kan inte ha denna domstolscirkus..!” • ”Förvaltningsrättens utslag är inte värdigt ett rättssamhälle..!” • ”Frågor som dessa kan och ska inte hanteras av jurister..!” • ”Samtidigt borde alla inse att när regeringens och riksdagens beslut kan inhiberas och över-klagas så lättvindigt av i stort sett vem som helst är det något uppenbart fel i rättsväsendet.”

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

More Related