European Community Environmental Law: Legislation, the European Court of Justice and Common-Interest Groups

2017 ◽  
pp. 103-116
Author(s):  
Philippe Sands*
2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-574
Author(s):  
Boas Kümper

The report surveys in two parts the development of the law on project-related planning and thus relates in particular to the planning and approval of space-consuming infrastructure projects such as traffic routes and power lines. For this purpose, German administrative law has long provided for the specific instrument of plan approval (Planfeststellung). In this context, the Federal Administrative Court has extensive first-instance jurisdiction and uses this to shape large parts of German approval law, including beyond the actual area of plan approval law, be it in terms of legal protection and procedure, be it with regard to the requirements of substantive environmental law. On the other hand, the revision of the law on environmental protection induced by the decisions of the Aarhus Compliance Committee and the European Court of Justice has been used by the German legislator to extend procedural specifics of the plan approval to other approval decisions of environmental relevance. This firstly indicates the contours of a general law on project approval and, secondly, the nature of the plan approval as an instrument for the implementation of projects in the public interest is more strongly emphasized.


2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 571-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Slater

Food law in the European Community is a touchy subject. One of the big ongoing debates in this area centres on the question of what names we call our foodstuffs by. In an internal market where local supermarket shelves are stocked with products coming from all around the EC and beyond, how can we be sure that the contents of the packets conform to our connotations of the name on the label? For example, if it says “chocolate” on the label, how can we be sure that it really is “chocolate” within our understanding of the word? The question of what names can or should go on labels is, sadly, very complicated. This article therefore intends to look at only one aspect of this problem: when a Member State is allowed to insist that the name of an imported “generic” product be changed. We will begin by briefly looking at the case law and one of the major pieces of legislation in this area – the Labelling Directive – before going on to discuss application of the law to the recent Chocolate Cases, handed down by the European Court of Justice (hereafter the “Court”) at the beginning of this year. This discussion will give some (hopefully) interesting insights into the way in which primary law, as interpreted by the Court, and secondary legislation interact and into the balancing of consumer protection and free trade performed by the Court.


2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Boelaert-Suominen

AbstractThe European Community has gradually increased its focus on marine and maritime affairs, starting with the Community's Fishery Policy in the 1970s and culminating recently in the 2007 Blue Book on an Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union. The Community's increased clout over marine and maritime matters has been reflected also in the case law of the European Court of Justice. From the outset the Court has given great impetus to the Community's efforts to assert its external competence in matters related to fisheries and conservation of biological resources of the sea. Even so, the Court has thus far only occasionally been confronted with public international law questions pertaining to the law of the sea. However, the few cases in which the Court has addressed such issues are worthy of note. For example, the Court has ruled on whether Member States should be allowed to rely on the international law of the sea in order to derogate from obligations under Community law; whether Member States should be allowed to prefer the dispute settlement provisions set out in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over the Community's own dispute settlement system; and on whether private parties may invoke arguments derived from the customary or conventional international law of the sea to challenge the validity of Community legislation pertaining to marine and maritime matters. The resulting judgments of the European Court of Justice have often turned out to be landmark cases, although some of them have tended to divide academic opinion.


2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-286
Author(s):  
Boas Kümper

Zusammenfassung Der Bericht informiert in zwei Teilen über den Entwicklungsstand des Rechts der vorhabenbezogenen Fachplanung und betrifft damit namentlich die Planung und Zulassung raumbeanspruchender Infrastrukturvorhaben wie Verkehrswege und Energieleitungen. Hierfür sieht das deutsche Verwaltungsrecht das spezifische Instrument der Planfeststellung vor. Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht verfügt in diesem Zusammenhang über eine weitreichende erstinstanzliche Zuständigkeit und prägt mittels dieser weite Teile des deutschen Zulassungsrechts, auch über den eigentlichen Bereich des Planfeststellungsrechts hinaus, sei es bezüglich des Rechtsschutzes und des Verfahrens, insbesondere der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung, sei es bezüglich der Anforderungen des materiellen Umweltrechts. Die durch Entscheidungen des Aarhus Compliance Committee und des Europäischen Gerichtshofs induzierte Überarbeitung des Rechts des Umweltrechtsschutzes hat der deutsche Gesetzgeber andererseits zum Anlass genommen, verfahrensrechtliche Spezifika der Planfeststellung auf andere umweltrelevante Zulassungsentscheidungen zu erstrecken. Hierdurch deuten sich erstens Konturen eines allgemeinen Vorhabenzulassungsrechts an und wird zweitens die Eigenart der Planfeststellung als Instrument zur Durchsetzung von Vorhaben im öffentlichen Interesse stärker akzentuiert. Abstract The report surveys in two parts the development of the law on project-related planning and thus relates in particular to the planning and approval of space-consuming infrastructure projects such as traffic routes and power lines. For this purpose, German administrative law has long provided for the specific instrument of plan approval (Planfeststellung). In this context, the Federal Administrative Court has extensive first-instance jurisdiction and uses this to shape large parts of German approval law, including beyond the actual area of plan approval law, be it in terms of legal protection and procedure, be it with regard to the requirements of substantive environmental law. On the other hand, the revision of the law on environmental protection induced by the decisions of the Aarhus Compliance Committee and the European Court of Justice has been used by the German legislator to extend procedural specifics of the plan approval to other approval decisions of environmental relevance. This firstly indicates the contours of a general law on project approval and, secondly, the nature of the plan approval as an instrument for the implementation of projects in the public interest is more strongly emphasized.


1992 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-185
Author(s):  
Christine Boch ◽  
Robert Lane

Unless the law is enforced, it cannot command respect. Securing proper observance and protection of Community rights has long been recognized to be a fundamental challenge for the Community. The burden falls principally to the national courts, guided by the European Court of Justice. However, the guidance offered appears at times at variance with itself. It seems in particular that, in some instances, the obligation of result laid down in directives simply cannot be achieved. This article looks at the case law on remedies developed by the European Court, seeks to identify inconsistencies therein and suggests how they might be cured.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document