scholarly journals Back to the future: Brexit, EIA and the challenge of environmental judicial review

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-20
Author(s):  
Maia Perraudeau
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Environmental Legislation ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Environmental Decisions ◽  
The Eu

This article explores how legal culture influences judicial interpretation of environmental legislation, which in turn affects how effectively public authorities are legally held to account for environmental decisions. Analysis of initial case law from the UK’s transposition of the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive shows English administrative courts interpreting the directive so restrictively as to undermine the purpose of the legislation itself. It will be suggested that the political sensitivity and legal complexity of administrative law, combined with the legally challenging nature of environmental problems, contribute to a legal culture of narrow interpretation. In contrast, the purposive and effectiveness-orientated approach of EU legal culture facilitated the House of Lord’s later reinterpretation of the Directive, allowing increased judicial engagement in the challenge of environmental law. This article therefore contends that ensuring effective environmental law after Brexit will require a reframing of the legal culture of administrative law itself.

EU Administrative Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Open Method Of Coordination ◽  
Direct Administration ◽  
Book Deal ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Eu

The third edition of EU Administrative Law provides comprehensive coverage of the administrative system in the EU and the principles of judicial review that apply in this area. This revised edition provides important updates on each area covered, including new case law; institutional developments; and EU legislation. These changes are located within the framework of broader developments in the EU. The chapters in the first half of the book deal with all the principal variants of the EU administrative regime. Thus there are chapters dealing with the history and taxonomy of the EU administrative regime; direct administration; shared administration; comitology; agencies; social partners; and the open method of coordination. The coverage throughout focuses on the legal regime that governs the particular form of administration and broader issues of accountability, drawing on literature from political science as well as law. The focus in the second part of the book shifts to judicial review. There are detailed chapters covering all principles of judicial review and the discussion of the law throughout is analytical and contextual. It begins with the principles that have informed the development of EU judicial review. This is followed by a chapter dealing with the judicial system and the way in which reform could impact on the subject matter of the book. There are then chapters dealing with competence; access; transparency; process; law, fact and discretion; rights; equality; legitimate expectations; two chapters on proportionality; the precautionary principle; two chapters on remedies; and the Ombudsman.

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2198824
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-370
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

scholarly journals Has the Action for Failure to Act in the European Union Lost its Purpose?

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Daukšienė ◽  
Arvydas Budnikas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Eu

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution’s express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.

scholarly journals The Europeanisation of Spanish Administrative Law through the Principle of Legitimate Expectations

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-86
Author(s):  
Luis Arroyo Jiménez ◽  
Gabriel Doménech Pascual
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
The Eu

This article describes the Europeanisation of Spanish administrative law as a result of the influence of the EU law general principle of legitimate expectations. It examines, firstly, whether the formal incorporation of the principle of legitimate expectations into national legislation and case law has modified the substance of the latter, and if so, secondly, whether this has led to a weaker or a more robust protection of the legal status quo. To carry out that examination, the article considers the influence of the principle of legitimate expectations in two different areas: in individual administrative decision-making, and in legislative and administrative rulemaking. Our conclusion is that the Europeanisation of Spanish administrative law through the principle of legitimate expectations has been variable and ambiguous.

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.

Proceduralism and Automation

2020 ◽  
pp. 275-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Harlow ◽  
Richard Rawlings
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Paradigm Change ◽  
Technological Revolution ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
The Impact

In this chapter, we argue that administrative procedure has become a central organising concept for administrative law. Our first theme is the steady proceduralisation of public administration experienced in recent years, in the framework of a relationship between courts and administration which we present as a two-way, non-hierarchical process. We look first at internal drivers to proceduralisation emanating from administration, notably the managerial reforms of the 1980s and the rise of regulation as a standard governance technique. We then turn to the contemporary case law of judicial review, focussing on the judicial response to, and stimulus for, administrative proceduralism. Our second theme is the idea of procedures as a repository for values and of values as an important, though often subliminal, driver of administrative procedure. We look at the potential for exchange as well as dissonance between public administration and administrative law. Our third theme concerns challenges to administrative law from the technological revolution currently under way. The impact of automation on public administration was at first rather modest; today, however, technology is taking great leaps forward—from computerisation to artificial intelligence and beyond. The innovations have so far been welcomed as beneficial—faster and more consistent administration, swifter and less costly courts and tribunals. It is time to recognise that we are facing a paradigm change, in which key values and procedures of administrative law, such as transparency, accountability, individuation, and due process, will need to be supported and sustained.

Emergency! But What about Legal Protection in the EU?

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom BINDER ◽  
Argyro KARAGIANNI ◽  
Miroslava SCHOLTEN
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Emergency Powers ◽  
Executive Discretion ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
Private Actors ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe EU institutions and agencies have become increasingly involved in enforcing EU law directly vis-à-vis private actors. A number of such EU entities have also acquired the so-called emergency powers, which allow interference with the legal position of a private party. Given the lack of research in this area, the question that this article addresses is whether relevant safeguards have been introduced to ensure the rule of law in such situations to prevent the abuse of executive discretion by public authorities. What are the relevant safeguards in the emergency in the EU in the first place? Having analysed relevant EU legislation and case law, the article offers a complete overview of all the existing EU entities with the emergency powers and shows a great diversity in the extent to which the EU legislator has regulated procedural safeguards in relevant law. The article discusses what safeguards need to be ensured in an emergency and argues for clarity of legislative frameworks in this respect.

scholarly journals Case C-616/17 Blaise and Others: The precautionary principle and its role in judicial review – Glyphosate and the regulatory framework for pesticides

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 529-542
Author(s):  
Sabrina Röttger-Wirtz
Keyword(s):  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Active Substance ◽  
Plant Protection ◽  
Plant Protection Products ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

The approval renewal of glyphosate as an active substance for pesticides in the EU has also kept the Court of Justice occupied. Within this line of case law, the Blaise case is the most recent one. In this preliminary reference procedure the Court was asked to review the validity of the Plant Protection Products Regulation 1107/2009, examined against the precautionary principle as benchmark. The case is relevant not only for the questions raised about the Regulation, but also as it sheds a light on the – albeit limited – use of the precautionary principle in the judicial review of EU legislative measure.

scholarly journals The democratisation of European nature governance 1992–2015: introducing the comparative nature governance index

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Kingston ◽  
Zizhen Wang ◽  
Edwin Alblas ◽  
Micheál Callaghan ◽  
Julie Foulon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Aarhus Convention ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEuropean environmental governance has radically transformed over the past two decades. While traditionally enforcement of environmental law has been the responsibility of public authorities (public authorities of the EU Member States, themselves policed by the European Commission), this paradigm has now taken a democratic turn. Led by changes in international environmental law and in particular the UNECE Aarhus Convention (UNECE, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention (1998). Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention), signed on June 25, 1998.), EU law now gives important legal rights to members of the public and environmental non-governmental organisations (“ENGOs”) to become involved in environmental governance, by means of accessing environmental information, participating in environmental decision-making and bringing legal proceedings. While doctrinal legal and regulatory scholarship on this embrace of “bottom-up” private environmental governance is now substantial, there has been relatively little quantitative research in the field. This article represents a first step in mapping this evolution of environmental governance laws in the EU. We employ a leximetrics methodology, coding over 6000 environmental governance laws from three levels of legal sources (international, EU and national), to provide the first systematic data showing the transformation of European environmental governance regimes. We develop the Nature Governance Index (“NGI”) to measure how the enforcement tools deployed in international, EU and national law have changed over time, from the birth of the EU’s flagship nature conservation law, the 1992 Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC). At the national level, we focus on three EU Member States (France, Ireland and the Netherlands) to enable a fine-grained measurement of the changes in national nature governance laws over time. This article introduces our unique datasets and the NGI, describes the process used to collect the datasets and its limitations, and compares the evolution in laws at the international, EU and national levels over the 23-year period from 1992–2015. Our findings provide strong empirical confirmation of the democratic turn in European environmental governance, while revealing the significant divergences between legal systems that remain absent express harmonisation of the Aarhus Convention’s principles in EU law. Our data also set the foundations for future quantitative legal research, enabling deeper analysis of the relationships between the different levels of multilevel environmental governance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document