Environmental Protection Meets Security of Electricity Supply

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Ilina Cenevska
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
Electricity Supply ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Power Stations ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
National Energy Policy ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Practical Implications

Abstract This case comment explores the relationship between two intertwined objectives – ensuring security of electricity supply and environmental protection – in the context of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen ASBL v. Conseil des ministres. The analysis focuses on the application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Habitats Directive to the facts of the case, which concerns the extension by a ten-year period of the operation of two Belgian nuclear power stations (Doel 1 and Doel 2) as part of a national energy policy strategy to ensure the security of Belgium's electricity supply. The case comment also considers the legal and practical implications that arise as a result of employing the ‘security of electricity supply’ exemption to enable derogation from the requirements of the aforementioned Directives in circumstances where a Member State considers the security of its electricity supply to be under threat.

scholarly journals Reinicio de actividades y evaluación ambiental. Comentario al asunto C-411/17, STJUE (Gran Sala) de 29 de julio de 2019.

2019 ◽  
pp. 265-287
Author(s):  
Agustín GARCÍA URETA
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
Public Security ◽  
Electricity Supply ◽  
Power Stations ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legislative Procedure

LABURPENA: Lan horrek Europako Batasuneko Justizia Auzitegiaren epaia aztertzen du, bi zentral nuklearren ekoizpenarekin jarraitzeko baimenari buruzko auzi batean. Epaiak aintzat hartzen du ingurumen-inpaktuaren ebaluazioari buruzko araudiaren aplikazioa (2011/92 Direktiba) lege-egintzen kasuan, bai eta Habitatei buruzko Direktiba ere. Auzitegiak emandako baimenak proiektu bati buruzkoak zirela ondorioztatu zuen, Direktibaren zentzuan, eta haren ondorioak legegintza-prozesuan ebaluatu behar zirela. Era berean, ingurumen-ebaluazioari buruzko arauak habitatei buruzko zuzentarauaren arabera aplikatzen direla adierazi zuen. Zuzentarau horren ondorioetarako, Auzitegiak adierazi zuen eragindako estatu kidearen hornidura elektrikoa eteteko mehatxu «erreal eta larria» saihesteko beharra bakarrik izan zitekeela aurreikusitako proiektuak gauzatzea justifikatzen zuen segurtasun publikoko arrazoi bat. ABSTRACT: This comment analyses the judgment of the European Court of Justice in a case regarding the authorization granted to two nuclear power stations. The Court considers the application of the environmental impact assessment Directive (2011/92) in the case of the adoption of legislative acts and also of the Habitats Directive. The Court concludes that the authorization related to a project as defined in the former Directive and that their effects should have been assessed in the legislative procedure. Likewise, the Court held that the rules on environmental assessment under the habitats Directive were also applicable. Within the context of this Directive, the Court held that the only ground capable of constituting a public security ground for the purposes of that directive that would justify proceeding with the project was the need to avoid a genuine and serious threat of rupture of that Member State’s electricity supply. RESUMEN: Este trabajo examina la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea en un asunto relativo a la autorización a dos centrales nucleares. La sentencia considera la aplicación de la normativa de evaluación de impacto ambiental (Directiva 2011/92) en el caso de actos legislativos, así como de la Directiva de hábitats. El Tribunal llega a la conclusión de que las autorizaciones concedidas se referían a un proyecto, en el sentido de la Directiva y que sus efectos debían haberse evaluado en el proceso legislativo. Igualmente, afirmó la aplicación de las normas sobre evaluación ambiental bajo la directiva de hábitats. A los efectos de esta directiva, el Tribunal afirmó que solo la necesidad de evitar una amenaza «real y grave» de corte del suministro eléctrico del Estado miembro afectado podía constituir una razón de seguridad pública que justificase la ejecución de los proyectos previstos.

Free Movement of Goods and Environmental Protection in EU Law: A Troubled Relationship?

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Poncelet
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract This article examines the relationship between the principle of free movement of goods and the protection of the environment under the umbrella of European Union (EU) law. It will be discussed whether Member States are suitably provided with legal means which enable them to take due account of environmental circumstances when they take measures which have an impact on the circulation of goods within the internal market. To this end, the relevant provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) will be critically analysed in the light of their interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) over the last decades. Particular emphasis will be given to a recent decision of the CJEU which has shed new light on this subject.

ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS IN ARBITRAL AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT IN EUROPE

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-415
Author(s):  
Ewelina Kajkowska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
State Courts ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Brussels Regulation

THE status of anti-suit injunctions in Europe has long given rise to controversy. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-536/13, Gazprom OAO [2015] All E.R. (EC) 711 sheds a new light on the relationship between anti-suit injunctions and the European jurisdiction regime embodied in the Brussels Regulation (Regulation No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). In this much anticipated judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed that, by virtue of the arbitration exclusion in Article 1(2)(d) of the Brussels Regulation, Member State courts are not precluded from enforcing anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitration tribunals and aimed at restraining the proceedings before Member State courts. Although the decision was given before the Recast Brussels Regulation came into force (Regulation No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, effective from 10 January 2015), it can be assumed that the same conclusion would have been reached under the new law.

scholarly journals El TJUE y el Derecho Internacional: la defensa de su propia autonomía como principio constitucional básico = The CJEU and International Law: the defence of its own autonomy as a basic constitutional principle

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 330
Author(s):  
Luis Ignacio Gordillo Pérez
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Mixed Agreements ◽  
Fundamental Conclusion

Resumen: Este trabajo realiza un análisis crítico de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia respecto del Derecho internacional. Para ello, analiza los acuerdos internacionales y otras fuentes afines, la problemática derivada de los acuerdos firmados por los Estados miembros con terceros Estados, la relación entre el Derecho de la UE y el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos y, finalmente, el valor que el Tribunal confiere al Derecho internacional general y a la Carta de Naciones Unidas. La conclusión fundamental será que el principio básico que guía la jurisprudencia del TJ es la reivindicación y protección de su propia autonomía.Palabras clave: monismo, dualismo, pluralismo, autonomía, acuerdos mixtos, Dictamen 2/13, Dictamen 2/15.Abstract: This paper critically analyzes the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on International law. To that end, it analyzes international agreements and other related sources, the problems arising from agreements signed by Member States with third States, the relationship between EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights, and finally the value that the Court confers on general international law and the Charter of the United Nations. The fundamental conclusion will be that the basic principle guiding the jurisprudence of the CJEU is the claim and protection of its own autonomy.Keywords: monism, dualism, pluralism, autonomy, mixed agreements, Opinion 2/13, Opinion 2/15.

scholarly journals Values Influence Public Acceptability of Geoengineering Technologies Via Self-Identities

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 4591
Author(s):  
Andrew B. Moynihan ◽  
Geertje Schuitema
Keyword(s):  
Geothermal Energy ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Self Identity ◽  
Openness To Change ◽  
Public Acceptability ◽  
Self Transcendence ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Range Of Values ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Specific Technology

Values are important antecedents of how people view themselves, known as self-identities. Self-identities differ in their content and the importance that people attach to them. In turn, important self-identities promote attitudes that are compatible with a sense of who one is. This paper builds on existing work that highlights that self-identities explained the relationship between values and environmental judgments. This study incorporates a broader range of values (i.e., conservatism, openness to change, self-transcendence, self-enhancement) and self-identities (i.e., environmental, economic, political) and tests how they are related to acceptability of four geoengineering technologies. Whilst support was found for the overall model, the results also show that technology acceptability is context dependent. That is, which specific values and self-identities explain acceptability judgements depends on the specific technology that is evaluated. In general, an environmental self-identity related more to geothermal energy, an economic self-identity was most relevant to geotechnical engineering, and a political self-identity to nuclear power. Each self-identity seemed relevant to mining. This research contributes to the literature by applying this framework to acceptability of geoengineering technologies and discusses practical implications.

scholarly journals The day after: Protecting the human rights affected by environmental challenges after the EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 213-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Antonopoulos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Environmental Rights ◽  
Environmental Challenges ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Environmental Protection Policies ◽  
The Eu

This article explores whether a potential accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, offers a more effective method of protection for ‘environmental human rights’: those rights whose enjoyment is allegedly affected by environmental challenges. The European Court of Human Rights has decided on claims of alleged violations of human rights by both environmental degradation and the enforcement of environmental protection policies implementing EU environmental law. On the other hand, the capacity of the Court of Justice of the European Union to decide on human rights issues has been repeatedly challenged, while the inability of the Court to protect procedural (environmental) rights when it came to NGOs, allows for challenging the capacity of the Court of Justice of the European Union to protect substantive (environmental) rights as well. Will an accession mean that applicants will be able to bring claims for alleged violations, caused by the enforcement of EU generated environmental protection policies, against the EU Institutions rather than the enforcing State? This article follows the relevant developments towards the accession, and consequently seeks to determine how the day after the accession will look for the protection of human rights affected by environmental challenges.

‘What Has It Got to Do Necessarily with the European Union?’: International Family Law and European (Economic) Integration

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 329-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Meeusen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Economic Integration ◽  
Family Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Cooperation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
European Community Law

Family law has long been considered a domain which virtually escaped any impact from European Community law. Insofar as European cooperation was aimed at economic integration in the context of the EEC, the arguments in favour of keeping it that way seemed obvious and convincing. Today, the relationship between European law and (international) family law is often viewed in an entirely different way. The explanation for this shift lies in the broad, functional approach adopted by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to the free movement of persons in the European Union, as well as in the transformation of the Community from the EEC into the EC and its incorporation into a ‘European Union’ (EU) not exclusively oriented towards economic integration.

scholarly journals The right to paid annual leave as an EU fundamental social right. Comment on Bauer et al.: Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16 Stadt Wuppertal v. Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v. Martina Broßonn, EU:C:2018:871

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-448
Author(s):  
Maria Antonia Panascì
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Horizontal Direct Effect

This case note examines the judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union delivered in Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16 Stadt Wuppertal v. Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v. Martina Broßonn on 6 November 2018. It engages with the noteworthy aspects of the ruling, such as the horizontal direct effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), the relationship between primary and secondary law in the European Union legal order and the scope of application of the Charter.

IMPACT OF THE ROLE OF THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-89
Author(s):  
Anna Kęskiewicz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Making

The use of dogmatic-legal, empirical and linguistic semantics methodology is focused on sharing for better understanding of the law. Therefore, views on European jurisprudence have been presented in the paper. Without a doubt, the law-making nature of European Union law takes into account the field of environmental protection. Articles in law define the tasks that are important from the point of view of European legislation. The written nature of these determinants of the reasoning of the possibilities of environmental protection plays an important role in the interpretation of environmental law.

“Not Taking Rights Seriously”. Opting for the Primacy of eu Law over Broader Human Rights Protection

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-302
Author(s):  
Fisnik Korenica ◽  
Dren Doli
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Relationship

The European Union (eu) accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (echr) has been a hot topic in the European legal discourse in this decade. Ruling on the compliance of the Draft Agreement on eu accession to the echr with the eu Treaties, the Court of Justice of the eu (cjeu) came up with a rather controversial Opinion. It ruled that the Draft Agreement is incompliant with the eu Treaties in several respects. One of the core concerns in Opinion 2/13 relates to the management of horizontal relationship between the eu Charter of Fundamental Rights (ChFR) and echr, namely Article 53 ChFR and Article 53 echr. The article examines the Opinion 2/13’s specific concerns on the relationship between Article 53 ChFR and Article 53 echr from a post-accession perspective. It starts by considering the question of the two 53s’ relationship from the eu-law autonomy viewpoint, indicating the main gaps that may present a danger to the latter. While questioning from a number of perspectives the plausibility of the cjeu’s arguments in relation to the two 53s, the article argues that the Court was both controversial and argued against itself when it drew harshly upon these concerns. The article also presents three options to address the cjeu’s requirements on this issue. The article concludes that the cjeu’s statements on the two 53s will seriously hurt the accession project, while critically limiting the possibility of Member States to provide broader protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document