Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Funding as an Element of Access to Justice in Environmental Protection Cases in Belgium: A Socio-Legal Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions 2022

Part of the book series: YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions ((YSEC,volume 2022))

  • 133 Accesses

Abstract

Like many other countries, in the last years Belgium has seen a rise in environmental and climate litigation. At first sight, one could argue that this proves that claimants in environmental and climate cases manage to find their way to court. Following some legislative amendments, the legal standing of litigants acting in the collective interest in Belgium seems to have improved. However, this constitutes only one part of the story, and a closer look at some high-profile environmental and climate cases in Belgium suggests that litigants acting in the collective interest often rely on crowdfunding or other forms of private funding to be able to pay the fees. This chapter investigates whether the legal framework currently in force in Belgium ensures a satisfactory level of equality when it comes to access to funding for parties acting for the protection of the environment. To establish what a “satisfactory” level of access to justice could be, we rely on the multi-layered understanding of this right as established by the relevant supranational and international legislation and case-law, as well as by the Belgian Constitution as interpreted by the Belgian constitutional court. Through a small selection of cases from Wallonia, Brussels and Flanders and semi-structured interviews with claimants acting for the protection of the environment, we offer an overview of the funding instruments and modalities used in practice to bring environmental protection cases before Belgian courts. Our contribution is meant as an exploratory study into the topic of funding for these types of cases. In doing so, we point out how the legal framework on legal aid (public funding) currently in place in Belgium proves unable to guarantee access to justice in environmental matters, resulting in litigants looking for other, often private, sources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a more careful approach to the equation between the concepts of access to justice and rule of law see Lucy (2020), pp. 377–402.

  2. 2.

    Article 227 TFEU.

  3. 3.

    Rass-Masson and Rouas (2017), p. 10.

  4. 4.

    See para. 2.

  5. 5.

    UNECE (2021), p. 45.

  6. 6.

    In line with the best scientific practices, we proceeded to the pseudonymization of the respondents’ names in order to protect them from potential undesired consequences relating to the publication of their organizations’ sources of funding. We also recorded the interviews with the sole purpose of keeping track of the respondents’ answer. Such recordings have also been pseudonymised and securely kept under password-protected computers for a period of one year after the publication of this study.

  7. 7.

    Aarhus Convention National Implementation Report of Belgium (2021), p. 3.

  8. 8.

    Public consultations are indeed seen as a tool of “strategic group politics”, understood as a way for public authorities “to regulate their interactions with outside constituencies in a way that fulfils their strategic objectives”—see Peterson (1992), p. 612. On the limitations of the public consultations run by the EU Commission, see also Turtelboom (2019), p. 85; McLaughlin and Greenwood (1995), p. 144.

  9. 9.

    Roulston and Choi (2018), pp. 233–245.

  10. 10.

    See Webley (2014).

  11. 11.

    For an overview see Rubin and Rubin (2012) and Bailer (2014).

  12. 12.

    Korkea-aho and Leino (2019), p. 36.

  13. 13.

    Not all of the interviewees have had a legal education. They are however familiar with legal proceedings.

  14. 14.

    See Bogner et al. (2009).

  15. 15.

    See for instance the ‘early’ environmental clauses inserted in the constitutions of Switzerland (1971), Greece (1995), Portugal (1976) and Spain (1978).

  16. 16.

    Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean Adopted at Escazú, Costa Rica, on 4 March 2018.

  17. 17.

    As Wouters et al. (2008) put it, “Europeanisation of international law” means that “its application and interpretation by EU Member States is no longer solely a matter for their own constitutional order, but is also governed by EU law”. See also Nicòtina (2021), p. 100.

  18. 18.

    Squintani and Perlaviciute (2020), p. 137.

  19. 19.

    Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies [2006] OJ L264/13; Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC [2003] OJ L41/26; Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC—Statement by the Commission[2003]OJ L156/17 and Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage [2004] OJ L143/56. When it comes to the implementation of the Convention provisions, this supranational legal framework follows the logic of the “Europeanisation of international law” (see fn 18), meaning that, in practice, it strengthens the homogeneous interpretation and the enforcement of the Convention provisions at the national level.

  20. 20.

    Loibl (2021), p. 310.

  21. 21.

    Fitzmaurice (2004).

  22. 22.

    Fasoli and McGlone (2018).

  23. 23.

    Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, decision C/2005/11—Belgium, adopted on 16 June 2008.

  24. 24.

    Van Wolferen and Eliantonio (2020), pp. 154–155.

  25. 25.

    CJEU, C-240/09, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v. Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky, Judgment of 8 March 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:125.

  26. 26.

    Ibid. (emphasis added).

  27. 27.

    Ibid.

  28. 28.

    Ligugnana (2019).

  29. 29.

    EU Commission (2020), para. 9, p. 3.

  30. 30.

    See for instance CJEU, C-57/16 P, ClientEarth v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2018:660; CJEU, C-615/13 P, CJEU, ClientEarth and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v EFSA, ECLI:EU:C:2015:489.

  31. 31.

    Lycourgos (2021). See for instance GCEU, T-330/18, Carvalho, ECLI:EU: T:2019:324.

  32. 32.

    According to such provision “any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures”.

  33. 33.

    See CJEU, C-33/14 P, Mory and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2015:609; CJEU, C-386/96 P, Dreyfus, ECLI:EU:C:1998:193; CJEU, C-622/16 P, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori, ECLI:EU:C:2018:873; CJEU, C-486/01 P, Front national v Parliament, ECLI:EU:C:2004:394; C-41/70, International Fruit Company, ECLI:EU:C:1971:53; CJEU, C-519/07 P, Commission v Koninklijke FrieslandCampina, ECLI:EU:C:2009:556.

  34. 34.

    See EU Commission (2020).

  35. 35.

    Regulation (EC) N° 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Union institutions and bodies, OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p. 13, entered into force on 28 September 2006 and into application on 17 July 2007.

  36. 36.

    For an overview see Kramer (2015), p. 131.

  37. 37.

    Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee decision No. ACCC/C/2008/32 of 17 March 2017.

  38. 38.

    Article 1 of the Regulation (EU) 2021/1767 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2021 amending Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies.

  39. 39.

    As Belgium is a federal state, several authorities are responsible for implementing the Aarhus Convention: the federal authority and the three federal entities (Walloon Region, Brussels-Capital Region and Flemish Community).

  40. 40.

    See Article 2, 2°, of the special law of 6 January 1989 on the Constitutional Court, Articles 17 and 18 of the Judicial Code, Article 19 of the coordinated laws on the Council of State and Article 35 of the Decree of 4 April 2014 on the organisation and procedure of some Flemish administrative courts.

  41. 41.

    Lefranc (2017).

  42. 42.

    Translation of “Omgevingsvergunning”: a unified permit that governs aspects of zoning, environment and exploitation.

  43. 43.

    Translation of “Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen”.

  44. 44.

    Translation of “Raad van State”, Belgium’s highest administrative court.

  45. 45.

    Article 19 Laws on the Council of State, coordinated on 12 January 1973.

  46. 46.

    Baert and Debersaques (1996), p. 203.

  47. 47.

    Council of State, General Meeting of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, Coomans and Others, No 187 998, 17 November 2008, see e.g. Council of State No 240 980, 8 March 2018, Council of State No 241.864, 21 June 2018 and Council of State No 244.351 of 2 May 2019.

  48. 48.

    Legislative proposal amending the coordinated laws to the Council of State with a view to grant associations a right of action in defence of collective interests, Parliamentary document 2014-201, No 54 0465/004.

  49. 49.

    See for example Council of State No 232.91, 17 November 2015: The direct nature of the interest means that there must be a direct causal link between the contested decision and the disadvantage suffered by the applicant. The very broad statutory objective of the applicant has not been touched in a sufficiently direct manner to distinguish the harm caused to the applicant from the harm which any unemployed person may suffer as a result of the implementation of the contested decision.

  50. 50.

    Legislative proposal amending the coordinated laws to the Council of State with a view to grant associations a right of action in defence of collective interests, Parliamentary document 2014-201, No 54 0465/004, p. 9.

  51. 51.

    Ibid, p. 9.

  52. 52.

    Translation of “Vlaamse Codex Ruimtelijke Ordening”.

  53. 53.

    Decree of 21 May 2021 amending the Decree of 4 April 2014 on the organisation and procedure of certain Flemish administrative courts as regards the optimisation of procedures.

  54. 54.

    Document (Parl. St.) Flemish Parliament. 19 March 2021 699 (2020–2021)—Nr. 1, Draft decree amending the decree of 4 April 2014 on the organisation and procedure of certain Flemish administrative courts as regards the optimisation of procedures, p. 5; reference is made to Eggermont (2017), Wirtgen (2015), Verhelst (2015) and Schoukens and Woldendorp (2014).

  55. 55.

    Meulebrouck (2021a), p. 8.

  56. 56.

    Constitutional Court, No. 46/2019, 14 March 2019.

  57. 57.

    Actions for annulment of Articles 6 and 9 of the Decree of 21 May 2021 amending the Decree of 4 April 2014 have been brought before the Constitutional Court. These cases are numbered 7638, 7644, 7656, 7683, 7698 and 7701 and are still pending.

  58. 58.

    Jans and Marseille (2010); Meulebrouck (2021b).

  59. 59.

    CJEU, Case C-826/18, LB, Stichting Varkens in Nood, Stichting Dierenrecht, Stichting Leefbaar Buitengebied tegen college van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Echt-Susteren, ECLI:EU:C:2021:7, para. 69.

  60. 60.

    ABRvS 14 april 2021, ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:786; ABRvS 4 mei 2021, ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:953.

  61. 61.

    Judicial Code of 10 October 1967 (hereafter: “Judicial Code”).

  62. 62.

    Lefranc (2019).

  63. 63.

    See Court of Cassation, No P.12.1389.N, 11 June 2013, Huldenberg.

  64. 64.

    The law of 21 December 2018 ‘containing various provisions on justice’ added Article 17 para. 2 to the Judicial Code; Allemeersch and Vandensande (2019).

  65. 65.

    Explanatory Memorandum, document chamber of representatives (Memorie van toelichting, Parl.St. Kamer) 2018–19, nr. 3308/1, pp. 96–100.

  66. 66.

    Advice Council of State, document chamber of representatives (Parl.St. Kamer) 2018–19, nr. 3303/1, p. 215.

  67. 67.

    Report, document chamber of representatives (Verslag, Parl.St. Kamer) 2018–19, nr. 3308/8, 106–110 (statement B. ALLEMEERSCH at the hearing of 6 November 2018).

  68. 68.

    Lefranc (2019).

  69. 69.

    See Article 2, para. 2 of the Special Law of 6 January 1989 on the Constitutional Court.

  70. 70.

    E.g. Constitutional Court, No 32/1990, No 133/2013, 10 October 2013 and No 53/2019, 4 April 2019.

  71. 71.

    Article 194 of the Flemish Municipal Decree of 15 July 2005 and Article 187 of the Flemish Provincial Decree of 9 December 2005.

  72. 72.

    Schaiko (2020).

  73. 73.

    Translation of “Milieustakingsvordering”.

  74. 74.

    Flemish decree of 22 December 2017 on local government.

  75. 75.

    Constitutional Court, No 129/2019 and 131/2019, 10 October 2019.

  76. 76.

    The rates are determined in the Royal Decree of 30 November 1976 ‘fixing the rate for bailiffs’ deeds in civil and commercial matters and the rate of certain allowances’. A summon usually costs between EUR 200 and EUR 500 per party which must be summoned.

  77. 77.

    Registry fees consist of fees for register entry, drafting and copy execution and are set out in the Code on Registration, Mortgage and Registry Fees, under Article 268 et seq. As of 1 February 2019 the amount of the registry fee is as follows: Justice of the Peace Court and Police Court—50 EUR, Court of First Instance and Business Court—165 EUR, Court of Appeal—400 EUR, Court of Cassation—650 EUR, Council of State, 200 EUR—Flemish Council for Permit Disputes, 200 EUR (annulment) or 100 EUR (suspension).

  78. 78.

    Article 1019 Judicial code states that the registration fees classed as legal costs consist of a general fixed fee, specific fixed fees and fees due on judgments leading to conviction, liquidation or collocation of monies or securities. Registration fees can be explained as taxes and are intended as general compensation for services that the court delivers (in addition to the registry fee). A conviction for an amount in excess of EUR 12,500 is subject to a registration fee of 3% to be paid by the losing party, calculated on the amount to which it was convicted.

  79. 79.

    Article 1018 Judicial Code.

  80. 80.

    Article 1022 Judicial Code; Article 66 of the Regent’s Decree of 23 August 1948 regulating the administration of justice before the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State; Royal Decree of 26 October 2007 setting the rate of the procedural indemnity referred to in Article 1022 of the Judicial Code and fixing the date of entry into force of Articles 1–13 of the Law of 21 April 2007 on the recoverability of lawyers’ fees and costs associated with legal assistance; Article 66 of the Regent’s Decree of 23 August 1948 regulating the administration of justice before the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State. For non-monetised claims, the basic amount is 1440.00 EUR in civil cases and 700 EUR in administrative cases.

  81. 81.

    Article 508/5 et seq. Judicial Code.

  82. 82.

    Article 508/7 et seq. Judicial Code.

  83. 83.

    Article 664 et seq. Judicial Code.

  84. 84.

    See the Decree of the Flemish Government of 18 December 2015 and the Decree of the Walloon Government of 23 January 2014, both regulating the recognition and subsidising of environmental and nature associations.

  85. 85.

    www.omgeving.vlaanderen.be/erkenning-en-subsidi%C3%ABring-van-milieu-en-natuurverenigingen.

  86. 86.

    Aarhus Convention National Implementation Report of Belgium (2021)

  87. 87.

    All interviews were conducted in January–February 2022.

  88. 88.

    Klimaatzaak. www.klimaatzaak.eu/en.

  89. 89.

    Consult the verdict here: Klimaatzaak. www.klimaatzaak.eu/nl/the-case; Auvray et al. (2021).

  90. 90.

    It is possible to consult the appeal online in French: Klimaatzaak. https://affaireclimat.cdn.prismic.io/affaireclimat/989e74fe-3d01-4cd0-9fff-d8642f974d8a_2021117_Reque%CC%82te+d%27appel_Def+DOCX_00832397+DOCX+-+PDF.pdf.

  91. 91.

    Klimaatzaak. www.klimaatzaak.eu/nl/the-case.

  92. 92.

    Beperk de Straling. www.beperkdestraling.org/.

  93. 93.

    Constitutional Court, No. 5/2021, 14 January 2021.

  94. 94.

    Constitutional Court, No. 133/2022, 20 October 2022.

  95. 95.

    Grondrecht. www.grondrecht.eu.

  96. 96.

    The choice of confidentiality prevents us from disclosing further details.

  97. 97.

    Bond Beter Leefmilieu unites nature and environmental organisations and strengthens the voice of sustainable leaders in Flanders.

  98. 98.

    Klimaatzaak. https://www.klimaatzaak.eu/nl/financials.

  99. 99.

    Grondrecht. https://opencollective.com/pfonds/expenses.

  100. 100.

    Beperk de Straling. https://www.beperkdestraling.org/ (situation on 31 July 2022).

  101. 101.

    We refer here to Article 9, para. 5 of the Aarhus Convention.

  102. 102.

    See UNECE Secretariat, Synthesis Report on the status of implementation of the Convention. https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/ECE_MP.PP_2021_6_E.pdf.

References

  • Aarhus Convention National Implementation Report of Belgium (2021) Synthesis report submitted on behalf of the Federal Authority, the Brussels-Capital Region, the Walloon Region and the Flemish Region of the Kingdom of Belgium to the UNECE (2021), p 3. https://www.health.belgium.be/sites/default/files/uploads/fields/fpshealth_theme_file/synthesis_implementation_report_def_clean_1.pdf

  • Allemeersch B, Vandensande E (2019) Een Gemeenrechtelijk Regime van Vorderingen ter Verdediging van Collectieve Belangen. Rechtskunding Weekblad 32:1242

    Google Scholar 

  • Auvray F et al (2021) Belgische Klimaatzaak: Enkel(e) Vaststellingen? Juristenkrant 436:6–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Baert J, Debersaques G (1996) Raad van State Afdeling Administratie, 2. Ontvankelijkheid. die Keure, Brugge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailer S (2014) Interviews and surveys in legislative research. In: Martin S et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of legislative studies. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Beperk de Straling. https://www.beperkdestraling.org

  • Bogner A et al (2009) Interviewing experts, ECPR research methods

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggermont F (2017) Rechtsmacht en Belang bij het Middel. Tijdschrift Voor Bestuurswetenschappen en Publiekrecht 2017:380–397

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Commission (2020) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Improving access to justice in environmental matters in the EU and its Member States, COM(2020) 643, Brussels, 14 October 2020

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasoli E, McGlone A (2018) The non-compliance mechanism under the Aarhus Convention as ‘Soft’ enforcement of international environmental law: not so soft after all! Netherlands Int Law Rev 65(1):27–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice M (2004) The Kyoto Protocol compliance regime and treaty law. Singapore Yearb Int Law 8:23–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Grondrecht. https://opencollective.com/pfonds/expenses

  • Grondrecht. www.grondrecht.eu

  • Jans JH, Marseille AT (2010) The role of NGOs in environmental litigation against public authorities: some observations on judicial review and access to court in the Netherlands. J Environ Law 22:373–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klimaatzaak. https://www.klimaatzaak.eu

  • Korkea-aho E, Leino P (2019) Interviewing lawyers: a critical self-reflection on expert interviews as a method of EU legal research. Eur J Leg Stud 12:17–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer L (2015) The EU courts and access to environmental justice. In: Boer B (ed) Environmental law dimensions of human rights. Oxford University Press, p 131

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefranc P (2017) De ‘Actio Popularis’ ter Bescherming van het Milieu. Wenselijk? Tijdschrift Voor Milieurecht, special edition 27:19–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefranc P (2019) Artikel 17, tweede lid Ger.W.: Hooglied van het Algemeen Collectiefvorderingsrecht voor de Hoven en Rechtbanken of de Zwanenzang van de Eikendael-doctrine. Tijdschrift Voor Milieurecht 3:239–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Ligugnana G (2019) Environmental NGOs and access to justice: Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention and the EU Courts’ perspective. In: Recent challenges of public administration, vol 3. Iurisperitus Kiadó, pp 11–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Loibl G (2021) Compliance procedures and mechanisms. In: Fitzmaurice M et al (eds) Research handbook on international environmental law. Edward Elgar, p 310

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucy W (2020) Access to justice and the rule of law. Oxf J Leg Stud 40(2):377–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lycourgos C (2021) Locus standi of non-governmental organizations in environmental matters under EU law. In: Lycourgos C et al (eds) Access to justice of environmental NGOs: a comparative perspective (EU, France, Cyprus). Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. www.library.fes.de

  • McLaughlin A, Greenwood J (1995) The management of interest representation the European Union. J Common Mark Stud 33(1):143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meulebrouck M (2021a) Controversiële Decreetswijziging Beperkt Toegang tot de Bestuursrechter in het Omgevingsrecht. Juristenkrant 430:8–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Meulebrouck M (2021b) Verplichte participatie van de burger in het omgevingsrecht in Nederland en Vlaanderen onder druk ingevolge het arrest Varkens in Nood van het Hof van Justitie: beter voorkomen dan genezen. TMR 6:588–599

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicòtina A (2021) A procedural idea of environmental democracy. Rev Eur Adminis Law 14:85–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson M (1992) The presidency and organized interests: White House Patterns of Interest Group Liaison. Am Polit Sci Rev 86(3):612–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rass-Masson N, Rouas V (2017) Effective access to justice. Study for the PETI Committee, EU Commission, DG for Internal Policies, Policy Department, PE 596.818, p 10. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596818/IPOL_STU(2017)596818_EN.pdf

  • Roulston K, Choi M (2018) Qualitative interviews. In: Flick U (ed) The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection. SAGE, pp 233–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin HJ, Rubin IS (2012) Qualitative interviewing. The art of hearing data. SAGE

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaiko G (2020) Het Substitutierecht van de Burger: Graadmeter van een Democratische Rechtsstaat. Tijdschrift voor Ruimtelijke ordening, Omgeving en Stedenbouw 98:112–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoukens H, Woldendorp H (2014) Juridische Moeilijkheden bij Proactieve Natuurontwikkeling: een Laatste Reddingsboei voor het Polderdorpje Doel? Tijdschrift voor Omgevingsrecht en Omgevingsbeleid 105–106:97–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Squintani L, Perlaviciute G (2020) Access to public participation: unveiling the mismatch between what law prescribes and what the public wants. In: Peeters M, Eliantonio M (eds) Research handbook on EU environmental law. Edward Elgar, p 137

    Google Scholar 

  • Turtelboom A (2019) Public consultations – an essential tool for bringing the EU closer to its citizens. Eur Court Auditors J 4:81–86

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Secretariat (2021) Synthesis report on the status of implementation of the convention, UN ECE/MP.PP/2021/6, para. 189, 191 and 259, p 45

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wolferen M, Eliantonio M (2020) Access to justice in environmental matters in the EU: the EU’s difficult road towards non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention. In: Peeters M, Eliantonio M (eds) Research handbook on EU environmental law. Edward Elgar, p 154

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhelst G (2015) Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen en Milieuhandhavingscollege krijgen bestuurlijke lus 2.0. Rechtskunding Weekblad 79(24):923–939

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters J et al (2008) The Europeanisation of international law: the status of international law in the EU and its Member States. TMC Asser Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Webley L (2014) Qualitative approaches to empirical legal research. In: Cane P, Kritzer HM (eds) The Oxford handbook of legislative studies. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtgen A (2015) Het Belang als Ontvankelijkheidsvoorwaarde van het Middel in het Kader van het Beroep tot Nietigverklaring bij de Raad van State. Tijdschrift voor Bestuurswetenschappen en Publiek Recht 3:131–151

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Government and Law Research Group, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Florence Van Durme & Alberto Nicòtina

Authors
  1. Florence Van Durme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alberto Nicòtina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alberto Nicòtina .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Eva Storskrubb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Van Durme, F., Nicòtina, A. (2023). Funding as an Element of Access to Justice in Environmental Protection Cases in Belgium: A Socio-Legal Analysis. In: Storskrubb, E. (eds) YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions 2022. YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions, vol 2022. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/16495_2023_46

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/16495_2023_46

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-38509-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-38510-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation