A first success in the long run for better access to justice in the EU: The scope of the administrative review procedure provided under Regulation 1367/2006 invalidated by the General Court

elni Review ◽  
2012 ◽  
pp. 92-96
Author(s):  
Anaïs Berthier
Keyword(s):  
Ambient Air ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Maximum Residue Level ◽  
Aarhus Convention ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Administrative Review ◽  
The Eu

The EU General Court adopted two long awaited decisions on 14 June 2012 in cases T-338/08 and T-396/09 in which it interprets for the first time Regulation 1367/2006 (the Aarhus Regulation) that applies the Aarhus Convention to EU institutions and bodies. The General Court also departs from the caselaw of the Court on the possibility for the Courts to examine the validity of an act of European Union law in the light of an international treaty. The author of this article supports this ruling and provides arguments that advocate a broadening of the control of legality of EU law. In both decisions, the General Court held that the regulation was not compatible with the Convention with regard to the types of acts that could be challenged through the administrative procedure provided by the Aarhus Regulation. Art. 10 of Regulation 1367/2006 allows NGOs to challenge decisions of EU institutions which constitute 'administrative acts'. In case T-338/08, the Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) applicants made a request to the Commission to review Regulation 149/2008 setting maximum residue level for certain products. In case T-396/09, NGOs asked the Commission to review the decision granting the Kingdom of the Netherlands a temporary exemption from the obligations laid down by Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. In both cases, the Commission considered the requests inadmissible claiming that the concerned acts were not 'administrative acts' as defined in Art. 2(1)(g) of Regulation 1367/2006 because they were not of 'individual scope'. The Court annulled both decisions. It therefore broadened the interpretation of the right access to justice for NGOs in environmental matters. A great move forward one might hope, but the Commission has appealed against both judgments. In this article, it is examined what real added value these decisions have with regards to access to justice. The author demonstrates that even though these decisions allow a broader category of acts, including those adopted through comitology, to be challenged under the administrative review procedure provided by the Aarhus Regulation, the decisions still do not ensure compliance of EU law with the Aarhus Convention. In this regard, the author sees that the appeal of the Commission focuses on the relationship between international law and EU law and the role of the latter as a 'benchmark' and legal basis to invalidate acts of secondary law.

9. European Union law and institutions

2021 ◽  
pp. 124-141
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
The Status ◽  
Fundamental Rights And Freedoms ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the Treaty framework and sources of EU law as well as the institutions of the EU. It covers the legal background to the UK’s departure from the EU, the legal process through which the UK left the EU, the key provisions of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (2020), and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. This chapter also discusses the effect of the UK’s departure from the EU on the status of the sources of EU law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms as well as failure to transpose a Directive into national law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Francovich principle.

What’s in a Name? Equal Treatment, Union Citizens and National Rules on Names and Titles

ICL Journal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ágoston Mohay ◽  
Norbert Tóth
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
Constitutional Identity ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Relevant Judgment

AbstractThe construction of names and the use of nobility titles is not regulated by European Union law. Yet the Court of Justice of the EU has had to deal with such issues on various occasions where national rules on names or titles had to be contrasted with the EU law on equal treatment, Union citizenship and free movement and residence. Rules on names fall essentially within the competence of the member states, but the states have to regard EU law when exercising this competence. Our paper undertakes to analyse this issue in light of a recent relevant judgment, the Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff case, having regard also to the Court’s reasoning regarding the national constitutional identity clause [Art 4 (2)TEU]. We argue – inter alia – that the Court of Justice decided in this judgment not to favour the rights of a free-moving EU citizen (even if the judgment admittedly affects only a limited circle of individuals) and put national constitutional identity first, yet the way in which the identity clause was used by the Court is also debatable in our view.

scholarly journals National Law or EU Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-191
Author(s):  
Georgi Mihaylov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Respective State ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The article examines cases of conflict between the national law of the EU Member States and European Union Law. There is an analysis of the legal advantage of EU law over national law or vice versa. Conclusions have been drawn that the national law should maintain its advantage when the reason for it is contained in the Constitution of the respective state.

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.

A Community of Principle

2020 ◽  
pp. 108-143
Author(s):  
Pavlos Eleftheriadis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Rival View ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the question of the relations between EU law and domestic law from the point of view of a political theory of the European Union. It is common to see EU law under ‘federalism’ or under a theory of ‘statism’. These two views are outlined at the start of this chapter by examining various arguments made for them. They are both rejected. The chapter defends a rival view, the ‘internationalist’ reading of the EU, according to which it is a branch of the law of nations. A careful look at the EU treaties and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU shows that the EU endorses an internationalist model based on equality and reciprocity. The EU does not replace the relation between citizens and political power. It does not establish a new constitutional law that replaces the national ones. It is a new way of organizing the relations between the various member states whose equality it fully respects. The coherence of European Union law is therefore not provided by uniformity imposed by a single master or constitutional rule, but is given by the political coordination of the laws of the member states achieved under the treaties. Coherence is achieved because the member states have adopted similar, although not identical, constitutional principles.

Lisbon and Access to Justice for Environmental NGOs: A Watershed? A Case Study Using the Setting of the Total Allowable Catches under the Common Fisheries Policy

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-410
Author(s):  
Charlotte Herman
Keyword(s):  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Environmental Ngos ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Aarhus Convention ◽  
Fisheries Policy ◽  
The Common ◽  
Gain Access ◽  
The Eu

AbstractBefore the Lisbon Treaty, environmental non - governmental organisations could rarely or not satisfy the admissibility test to gain access to the European courts. This contribution examines whether the rules on locus standi under the Lisbon Treaty will facilitate their access to justice. Attention will be given to what is understood by a 'regulatory act', the EU obligations under the Aarhus Convention and whether the new perspectives within the Lisbon Treaty will allow environmental non - governmental organisations to challenge TAC Regulations.

Public participation in decisions on specific activities in environmental matters in Croatia

elni Review ◽  
2012 ◽  
pp. 13-19
Author(s):  
Lana Ofak
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Positive Outcome ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Aarhus Convention ◽  
Specific Activities ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Croatia finished accession negotiations with the EU in June 2011. The Accession Treaty was signed on 9 December 2011. The EU accession referendum in Croatia was held in January 2012 with a positive outcome. 66.27% of Croatian citizens voted in favour of Croatian accession to the European Union and 33.13% of votes were against the accession. Following ratification of the Accession Treaty by the 27 EU member states, accession of Croatia to the EU is expected to take place on 1 July 2013. In the 2011 Progress Report, European Commission stated that there has been progress in the area of environment. Overall, Croatia’s environmentorientated preparations are nearing completion in terms of both alignment and implementation of the relevant legislation. However, implementation of the horizontal acquis, and in particular effective public participation and access to justice in environmental matters, need to be improved. The purpose of this article is twofold. Firstly, it provides a general overview of the legal framework for public participation in decisions on specific activities in Croatia, which is intended to implement provisions of Art. 6 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (hereinafter: the Aarhus Convention or Convention). Implementation of Art. 7 and 8 of the Aarhus Convention are not discussed. Secondly, specific problems in exercising the right to participate in environmental impact assessment procedures in Croatia are analysed. It is shown that there are cases of non-compliance with the provisions of Art. 6 of the Aarhus Convention.

Access to Justice: Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations According to the Aarhus Regulation

elni Review ◽  
2016 ◽  
pp. 76-84
Author(s):  
Thirza Moolenaar ◽  
Sandra Nóbrega
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Internal Review ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Administrative Omission ◽  
Wide Access ◽  
The Eu

Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation provides an opportunity for environmental non-governmental organisations (hereafter ENGOs) to request an internal review to an EU institution or body that has adopted an administrative act under environmental law, or should have done so in the case of an alleged administrative omission. The criteria that have to be met for an ENGO to be entitled to make this request are defined in Article 11 of the Regulation. Together, these criteria can be regarded as the criteria which define an ENGO at the European Union level. The aim of this article is to investigate whether these criteria are sufficiently clear and whether they contribute to the objective of providing wide access for ENGOs to the internal review procedure. In order to understand the aim the EU institutions had in mind when they decided on the standing criteria, this article examines how these criteria were selected by analysing the legislative documents that resulted in the adoption of the Aarhus Regulation. It helps to identify whether the Commission is currently interpreting these criteria in line with the spirit with which they have been defined. Furthermore, internal review requests which provide insights into the scope of the Article 11 criteria have been selected in order to understand how the European Commission currently interprets the standing criteria. Finally, a conclusion is provided on the questions raised, together with recommendations for improvement and further research.

Direct Public Access to EU Courts: Upholding Public International Law via the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee

2012 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Marsden
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Access ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Direct Access ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Aarhus Convention ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This article examines the opportunities for individuals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to obtain access to justice in the European Union (EU) via international law. In the context of the first part of a concluded case before the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC), it reviews the EU rules that restrict standing and examines whether the preliminary reference procedure from Member State courts provides an effective alternative to direct access to EU courts. Based on the general findings and recommendations, and analysis of the relationship between international and EU law, it is argued that there remains a need for greater EU compliance with the Convention, with the implication that EU primary as well as secondary law may need to be reformed if public international law obligations are to be fully met.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document