The Importance of Setting a Target: The EU Ambition of a High Level of Protection

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Delphine Misonne
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Administrative Discretion ◽  
Sensitive Issue ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe European Union (EU) aims to ensure a high level of environmental protection. This is a key message of primary EU law. This article explores the purpose and meaning of this explicit ambition. It deciphers its influence on case law and on judicial review of legislative and administrative discretion. It argues that the requirement goes beyond window dressing and that its added value lies both in supporting the legitimacy of bold decisions and in preventing a manifest dismissal of the requisites of environmental protection.Although primarily focused on EU law and on its technicalities, the article may offer helpful insights to other transnational or federal systems. It may help to build a better understanding of some of the challenges facing any environmental law regime confronted with the sensitive issue of ‘ambition’.

6. The European Union and the environment

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Bell ◽  
Donald McGillivray ◽  
Ole W. Pedersen ◽  
Emma Lees ◽  
Elen Stokes
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Different Sources ◽  
The Eu

This chapter provides a brief overview of how the EU shapes UK environmental law and policy. It begins by providing an introductory guide to EU law, outlining the key institutions of the EU, the different sources of EU law, and how EU law is made. The chapter then proceeds to look at the more substantive elements of EU law as they affect environmental protection, starting with the policy and constitutional bases for EU environmental law, and gives a flavour of the scope of EU environmental legislation, before considering the scope for national standards to exceed those set at EU level or to disrupt trade between the Member States. This is followed by a discussion of the challenges faced in making EU environmental law work, and then with some thoughts on the impact of Brexit and how this may shape UK environmental law.

Title XX Environment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sacha Garben
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Common Concern ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Dense Set ◽  
The Eu

The environment does not respect man-made borders, and is of common concern and interest of all mankind. As such, it is an area that merits and requires cross-border law and policy making par excellence. This should be reflected in the strong role played by the EU, which has a firm Treaty mandate and duty to protect the environment, features a rich body of case law, and boasts a dense set of secondary legislation. The very good reasons for this notwithstanding, it remains a remarkable development considering the absence of any reference to the environment in the original Treaties. Although a programme for action in this area was soon adopted in 1973, only in the 1986 SEA was an environmental legal basis introduced. Much of the initial environmental acquis was therefore developed by the Commission, the Council, and later the EP on the basis of other Treaty provisions, such as (now) Articles 114, 115, and 352 TFEU. EU environmental protection also owes a debt to the ECJ, which included it in the legitimate objectives on the basis of which MS could derogate from the free movement provisions. The Court has interpreted the provisions of EU environmental law generally in a protective manner, and endorsed the use of criminal law for the effective enforcement of EU environmental legislation.

Mixed Agreements: The EU Law Fundamentals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Mixed Agreements ◽  
The Eu

Whatever terminology one might wish to employ to describe the form of integration constituted by the European Union and its Member States, one fundamental attribute of that arrangement has always been the division, as between the Union and its Member States, of competence to conclude international agreements with other subjects of international law. Today, the fact that treaty-making competence—as an external facet of the more general division of legal authority—is divided and, to some extent, shared between the Union and its Member States is reflected by some of the opening provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Notwithstanding the changes to the scope and nature of the powers conferred upon the Union, resulting from both changes to primary law and the evolution of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the basic characteristics of the conferment as an attribution of a limited kind has always been the same; there has always existed a polity endowed with a treaty-making authority divided between and, indeed, shared by, the Union and its Member States. In the early 1960s mixed agreements—that is, agreements to which the European Union

From Washington with Love—Investor–State Arbitration and the Jurisdictional Monopoly of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 425-453
Author(s):  
Philip Strik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhile investor–State arbitration is to a large extent detached from the EU legal order, EU law has recently started to be invoked in investor-State arbitration proceedings. In the context of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, the Commission has expressed the view that investor-State arbitration gives rise to a number of ‘arbitration risks’ for the EU legal order. Not only can it solicit investors to engage in forum-shopping, but it can also result in questions of EU law not being litigated in Member State or Union courts. This chapter explores the extent to which the compatibility of investor–State arbitration with the EU legal order is in issue. It examines the main features of investor-State arbitration as concerns its interplay with the EU legal order, as well as the Court of Justice’s case law on issues of compatibility between systems of international dispute settlement and the EU legal order. The chapter highlights that the way in which investor–State arbitral tribunals handle issues of EU law, as well as the involvement of interested parties, may foster the synergy between investor–State arbitration and the EU legal order.

The EU as guarantor of environmental protection in Germany

elni Review ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. 17-24
Author(s):  
Thomas Ormond
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Main Instrument ◽  
Energy Community ◽  
The Eu

In recent years it has become fashionable again among politicians and publicists across Europe to practice ‘Brussels bashing’ and make the EU responsible for many ills of globalisation and modern society. This applies in particular to the field of environmental law. The European Union has been active in the field of environmental protection since the 1970s, i.e. since a time when there was no Union yet but a European Economic Community (EEC), a European Coal and Steel Community and a European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). The EEC Treaty of 1957 did not know the term ‘environmental protection’ and for the next decades did not contain any explicit legislative competence for this subject matter. The main instrument of EU environmental policy is the directive. In the European context it means a framework law, as proposed by the EU Commission and adopted by the Council and the European Parliament, which the Member States have to transpose within certain deadlines into their national law, and specify and implement by their authorities into practice. The directive is binding as regards the objective (the result to be achieved) but leaves the choice of form and methods to the national authorities. It is estimated that 80% of current environmental law in Germany (as well as probably in other Member States) is determined by the European Union. The author of this article presents his thoughts on how the EU shapes Member State environmental law and policy, highlighting inter alia “innovation from Brussels” such as EIA, access to environmental information and climate protection, as well as the systematic and risk-based approach as hallmark of EU legislation.

The Polluter Pays Principle in EU Climate Law: an Effective Tool before the Courts?

Climate Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Suzanne Kingston
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Polluter Pays Principle ◽  
Energy Law ◽  
The Eu

In EU law the polluter pays principle (ppp) enjoys constitutional status: Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (tfeu) enshrines it among the fundamental principles of the EU’s environmental policy. This article considers the legal status and development of the ppp in EU law, in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) and in EU policy, most recently in the EU’s Green New Deal. It goes on to identify three bodies of climate-related litigation where the ppp has been most influential to date: first, cases concerning the EU ets and emissions; second, cases concerning EU energy law; and third, cases concerning EU state-aid law. The conclusion reflects on the potential role of the ppp in other areas, including climate cases based on human and environmental rights, and climate cases brought against private parties.

scholarly journals Article 3(5) TEU a decade on: Revisiting ‘strict observance of international law’ in the text and context of other EU values

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110151
Author(s):  
Rupert Dunbar
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Balanced Approach ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Eu

Article 3(5) of the Treaty on the European Union concerns EU external relations and was a new provision of the Lisbon Treaty. It has been seized upon by scholars for its reference to ‘strict observance of international law’ by the EU in its relations with the wider world. However, recent case law in the Court of Justice of the European Union has demonstrated little movement towards this supposed ideal. This article supports the fact that rigid and unquestioning adherence to international law has not emerged in case law, particularly as Article 3(5) TEU also mandates that the Union ‘uphold and promote its values and interests’. By taking a broader view of both the text and context of Article 3(5) TEU in EU law as a whole, and through consideration of the limited demands international law places on domestic courts, the article argues that – contrary to current literature – a more expressly balanced approach towards respect for international law is required and should be nurtured in the case law.

scholarly journals The Relationship Between the Charter and General Principles: Looking Back and Looking Forward

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Emily HANCOX
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Transformative Potential ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Article 6 Treaty on European Union sets out two sources of fundamental rights in the EU—the Charter and the general principles of EU law—without specifying a hierarchy between them. Even though the Charter became binding over a decade ago, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) is yet to clarify unequivocally how these two sources interact. In this article I argue based upon the relevant legal framework that the Charter ought to replace the general principles it enshrines. This leaves a role for general principles in the incorporation of new and additional rights into the EU legal framework. Such an approach is necessary to ensure that the Charter achieves its aims in enhancing the visibility of the rights protected by EU law, while also providing the impetus for more coherent rights protection within the EU. What an extensive survey of CJEU case law in the field of non-discrimination shows, however, is that the CJEU has struggled to let its general principles case law go, potentially hampering the transformative potential of the Charter.

Twenty years later: Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as an Anthropocentric and Innovative Document

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (129) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Angelo VIGLIANISI FERRARO ◽  
Goran Ilik
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights And Freedoms ◽  
The Guardian ◽  
The Eu

The paper analyzes the legal content and scope of the norms of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and their meaning and application as a para-constitutional document of anthropocentric and innovative nature in the last twenty years. Special attention is paid to the place and role of the CJEU as a judicial body in charge of implementing and harmonizing EU law. The article also deals with the possibility of direct application of the norms of the Charter, both vertically and horizontally. In addition, the paper cites the CJEU case law to confirm the thesis that it must undertake a moral and legal obligation in order to impose itself not only as a creator of legal doctrines but also as the guardian of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the EU.

From Washington with Love—Investor–State Arbitration and the Jurisdictional Monopoly of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 425-453
Author(s):  
Philip Strik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Eu

Abstract While investor–State arbitration is to a large extent detached from the EU legal order, EU law has recently started to be invoked in investor-State arbitration proceedings. In the context of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, the Commission has expressed the view that investor-State arbitration gives rise to a number of ‘arbitration risks’ for the EU legal order. Not only can it solicit investors to engage in forum-shopping, but it can also result in questions of EU law not being litigated in Member State or Union courts. This chapter explores the extent to which the compatibility of investor–State arbitration with the EU legal order is in issue. It examines the main features of investor-State arbitration as concerns its interplay with the EU legal order, as well as the Court of Justice’s case law on issues of compatibility between systems of international dispute settlement and the EU legal order. The chapter highlights that the way in which investor–State arbitral tribunals handle issues of EU law, as well as the involvement of interested parties, may foster the synergy between investor–State arbitration and the EU legal order.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document