Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

European Union Court System and the Protection of the Environment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Environment Through the Lens of International Courts and Tribunals

  • 1065 Accesses

Abstract

For almost 30 years, the EU courts have been dealing with many cases relating to environmental protection. This has raised a number of issues relating to access to justice at the EU level. Because of the basic structure of the EU procedural rules, the direct actions brought before the EU Courts, especially actions for annulment, are rather closed to private litigants. The best way to bring a case to the EU courts thus remains the reference by a national court for a preliminary ruling. In this regard, the Court of Justice has focused on enhancing access of litigants to national courts when environmental protection is at stake. This procedural scheme has given rise to certain difficulties regarding EU compliance with the Aarhus Convention.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    See e.g. Maljean-Dubois 2017.

  2. 2.

    See e.g. Bétaille 2016; Truilhé and Hautereau-Boutonnet 2019.

  3. 3.

    According to Article 19(1) TEU, ‘The Court of Justice of the European Union shall include the Court of Justice, the General Court and specialised courts’. Since the removal of the Civil Service Tribunal, there is no longer specialised courts in the EU judicial system. On the jurisdiction of the General Court (formerly the Court of First Instance), see TFEU, Article 256. Concerning the most recent reforms, see Cartier-Bresson and Dero-Bugny 2020.

  4. 4.

    Originally, the only legal basis for European environmental law was the approximation of national laws affecting the establishment of the common market (current Articles 114 and 115 TFEU). The Single European Act of 1986 enshrined European environmental policy (current Articles 191 to 193 TFEU). At present, most EU legal acts to protect environment are based on Article 114 TFEU (if related to goods or services trade) or on Article 192 TFEU. Concerning the legal basis of the secondary legislation in the field of environmental protection, see e.g., Krämer 2016.

  5. 5.

    Because of the limited length of this chapter, there will be no discussion of the content of secondary legislation, nor of the principles of European environmental law, i.e. principle of prevention, principle of precaution and the polluter-pays principle. Moreover, general international law has a limited influence on EU law, due to the autonomy of the Union’s legal order. Therefore, we will not refer to international case law or the rules of general international law.

  6. 6.

    CJEU, Annual Report 2018 — Judicial Activity, pp. 127, 134, 242 and 245. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7000/fr/. Accessed 30 April 2021.

  7. 7.

    See Krämer 2004.

  8. 8.

    Concerning the EU Court system, see e.g., Lenaerts et al. 2014; Barents 2020.

  9. 9.

    TFEU, Article 263.

  10. 10.

    Ibid., Article 265.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., Articles 268 and 340 (2).

  12. 12.

    Ibid., Articles 258 and 259.

  13. 13.

    Articles 50a and 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU specifies the division of jurisdiction between the General Court and the Court of Justice. Especially, the actions for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations are always brought before the Court.

  14. 14.

    TFEU, Article 277.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., Article 267.

  16. 16.

    Court of Justice, Les Verts v Parliament, Judgement, 23 April 1986, Case No 294/83, ECLI:EU:C:1986:166, para 23.

  17. 17.

    See e.g., Arnull 1995, p. 7; Dubout 2007, p. 429; Mastroianni and Pezza 2014, p. 923; Wildemeersch 2019.

  18. 18.

    See infra, Sect. 8.3.

  19. 19.

    See Aarhus Convention, opened for signature 25 June 1998 (1998), entered into force 30 October 2001 and Decision 2005/370/EC of the Council on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, 17 February 2005, OJEU 2005, L124, p. 1.

  20. 20.

    Paragraphs 1 and 2 concern legal proceedings to enforce the substantive rights enshrined in the Convention. Paragraph 3 also concerns actions against private individuals, but that aspect is not the central issue in EU litigation.

  21. 21.

    Court of Justice, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie, Judgment 8 March 2011, Case No C-240/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:125, para 44–45.

  22. 22.

    Regulation (EC) No 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 Community institutions and vessels, 6 September 2006, OJEU 2006 L264, p. 13.

  23. 23.

    See infra, Sect. 8.3.2.3.

  24. 24.

    See supra, Sect. 8.2.1.

  25. 25.

    Although Member States may also bring such actions (Article 259 TFEU), State actions remain marginal in practice.

  26. 26.

    TFEU, Article 258.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., Article 260.

  28. 28.

    See https://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/statistics.htm. Accessed 30 April 2021. The difference between those two figures is due to the fact that most of the proceedings are closed at the stage of the pre-litigation procedure.

  29. 29.

    See European Commission, Study to assist the benefit delivered through the enforcement of EU compliance with legal rules—Purpose report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2016. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/Final_report_study_benefits_enforcement.pdf. Accessed 30 April 2021.

  30. 30.

    Court of Justice, Commission v Ireland, Judgment, 12 November 2019, Case No C-261/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:955.

  31. 31.

    See Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Article 160(7).

  32. 32.

    One can only identify a few cases: Court of Justice, Commission v Italy, Order, 19 December 2006, Case No C-503/06 R, ECLI:EU:C:2006:800 and in the same case Order, 27 February 2007, ECLI:EU:C:2007:120; Commission v Poland, Order, 18 April 2007, Case No C-193/07 R, ECLI:EU:C:2007:218 and Commission v Malta, Order, 24 April 2008, Case No C-76/08 R, ECLI:EU:C:2008:252.

  33. 33.

    Court of Justice, Commission v Poland, Order, 27 July 2017, Case No C-441/17 R, ECLI:EU:C:2017:622. The precautionary principle had already been invoked by the Court in order to justify the adoption of interim measures: Court of Justice, Commission v Malta, Order, 24 April 2008, above n 32, para 37.

  34. 34.

    Court of Justice, Commission v Poland, Order, 20 November 2107, Case No C-441/17 R, ECLI:EU:C:2017:877.

  35. 35.

    Court of Justice, Commission v Poland, Order, 11 October 2017, Case No C-441/17, ECLI:EU:C:2017:794. About the expedited procedure, see Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

  36. 36.

    Court of Justice, Commission v Poland, Judgment, 17 April 2018, Case No C-441/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:255.

  37. 37.

    It is only whether the Commission brings a case on the grounds that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive that it may demand immediately penalty payment to the Court: see article: see TFEU, Article 260(3).

  38. 38.

    With regard to the first pre-litigation procedure, see Court of Justice, Commission v Ireland, Judgment, 3 July 2008, Case No C-215/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:380, paras 30–33; on the final stage of the proceedings, see Court of Justice, Commission v Ireland, Judgment, 12 November 2019, Case No C-261/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:955.

  39. 39.

    See: https://ec.europa.eu/assets/sg/report-a-breach/complaints_en/index.html. Accessed 30 April 2021.

  40. 40.

    Court of Justice, Lütticke v Commission of the EEC, Judgment, 1 March 1966, Case No 48/65, ECLI:EU:C:1966:8 and Clarke v Commission, Order, 1 October 2019, Case No C-284/19 P, ECLI:EU:C:2019:799, para 27.

  41. 41.

    Regulation (EC) 1367/2006, Article 2(2)(b).

  42. 42.

    Krämer 2009, p. 13.

  43. 43.

    Court of Justice, Bayer CropScience and Bayer v Commission, Order, 7 February 2019, Case No C-499/18 P, ECLI:EU:C:2019:107, para 6.

  44. 44.

    Disputes are, in principle, brought before General Court, which gives judgment at first instance by decisions against which an appeal may be brought before the Court. The appeal has no devolutive effect: the Court is limited to reviewing the external validity and internal legality of the decision under appeal. See Naômé 2016.

  45. 45.

    Following the Court’s case law ‘the European Union may incur non-contractual liability only if a number of conditions are fulfilled, namely the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the author of the act and the damage sustained by the injured parties’: see e.g., Court of Justice, Commission v Fresh Marine, Judgment, 10 July 2003, Case No C-472/00 P, EU:C:2003:399, para 25 and Artegodan v Commission, Judgment, 19 April 2012, Case No C-221/10 P, EU:C:2012:216, para 80.

  46. 46.

    General Court, Abel and Others v Commission, Order, 4 May 2018, Case No T-197/17, ECLI:EU:T:2018:258, paras 29–33.

  47. 47.

    See e.g., General Court, Enviro Tech (Europe) and Enviro Tech International v Commission, Judgment, 16 December 2011, Case No T-291/04, ECLI:EU:T:2011:760, paras 140–163; Court of Justice, Enviro Tech (Europe) v Commission, Order, 24 January 2013, Case No C-118/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2013:37 and Holcim v Commission, Judgment, 7 April 2016, Case No C-556/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2016:207.

  48. 48.

    See General Court, Federcaccia Toscana and Others v Commission, Order, 26 October 2017, Case No T-562/15, ECLI:EU:T:2017:765, paras 72–77.

  49. 49.

    See, in that regard, Lenaerts et al. 2014, paras 7.85.

  50. 50.

    Following the Court’s case law, the condition that a natural or legal person must be directly concerned ‘requires two cumulative criteria to be met, namely, first, the contested measure must directly affect the legal situation of the individual and, second, it must leave no discretion to its addressees who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from the EU rules alone without the application of other intermediate rules’: Court of Justice, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission, Judgment, 6 November 2018, Cases No C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P, ECLI:EU:C:2018:873, para 42.

  51. 51.

    Court of Justice, Plaumann v Commission, Judgment, 15 July 1963, Case No 25/62, ECLI:EU:C:1963:17, para 223.

  52. 52.

    TFEU, Article 263(4), final limb.

  53. 53.

    Legislative acts are the ones adopted by the Council of the EU and, where appropriate, by the European Parliament, in accordance with an ordinary or special legislative procedure: see TFEU, Article 289(3). In short, these first-level measures of general application legally reflect the most important political choices of the EU institutions. Regulatory acts are acts of general application that are not legislative acts. About the concept of regulatory acts, see Court of Justice, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, Judgment, 3 October 2013, Case No C-583/11 P, ECLI:EU:C:2013:625, paras 59–61.

  54. 54.

    Wildemeersch 2014, p. 155.

  55. 55.

    Court of Justice, T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission, Judgment, 28 April 2015, Case No C-456/13 P, ECLI:EU:C:2015:284, para 40.

  56. 56.

    For instance, in the field of competition policy, the Commission may adopt individual decisions imposing fines on undertakings or authorising concentrations of undertakings.

  57. 57.

    Kovar 1999, p. 387.

  58. 58.

    In certain situations, acts of general application of the EU having direct effect alter the legal situation of individuals, without there being any real need for a national implementing decision. As the law stands, direct access to the EU Courts may nonetheless possibly be impossible for challenging those acts. Proceedings before the national courts may, in some way, be ‘triggered’ in order to be able to benefit from a challengeable decision, and to suggest to the national court to refer for a preliminary ruling. See Coutron 2014, p. 548.

  59. 59.

    Lenaerts 2009, p. 257.

  60. 60.

    Blumann 1997, p. 63 and p. 80 ss.; Lenaerts 1993, p. 846; de Sadeleer 2012, p. 73.

  61. 61.

    See e.g., General Court, GHC v Commission, Judgement, 24 June 2015, Case No T-847/14, ECLI:EU:T:2015:428. See also a case in which the locus standi has not been challenged by the General Court: Mebrom v Commission, Judgement, 22 May 2007, Case No T-216/05, ECLI:EU:T:2007:148.

  62. 62.

    On that ground, the General Court has dismissed as inadmissible several actions brought against Commission decisions concerning the national allocation plans for CO2 quotas adopted in the context of the EU emissions trading system, since the Member States had a margin of discretion to allocate allowances within the limits of the ceiling authorized by the Commission: see e.g., Court of First Instance, Drax Power and Others v Commission, Order, 25 June 2007, Case No T-130/06, ECLI:EU:T:2007:188; Cemex UK Cement v Commission, Order, 6 November 2007, Case No T-13/07, ECLI:EU:T:2007:331 and Dykerhoff Polska v Commission, Order, 23 September 2008, Case No T-196/07, ECLI:EU:T:2008:390.

  63. 63.

    See, about the national allocation plans for CO2 quotas mentioned above, Court of Justice, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v Commission, Order, 8 April 2008, Case No C-503/07 P, ECLI:EU:C:2008:207.

  64. 64.

    See, thereto, General Court, Enviro Tech v Commission, Judgement, 16 December 2011, above n 47, paras 94–120.

  65. 65.

    See supra, Sect. 8.3.2.1.

  66. 66.

    A regulatory act not entailing implementing measures under the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU can be a Directive, a Regulation, a Decision or any other act having legal effects.

  67. 67.

    General Court, Microban v Commission, Judgement, 25 October 2011, Case No T-262/10, ECLI:EU:T:2011:623, paras 26–38. For another example, the General Court annulled a regulation without calling into question the locus standi of the applicant: General Court, Bilbaina de Alquitranes and Others v Commission, Judgement, 7 October 2015, Case No T-689/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:767. In appeal, see Court of Justice, Commission v Bilbaína de Alquitranes and Others, Order, 7 July 2016, Case No C-691/15 P, ECLI:EU:C:2016:597. The General Court adopted a perhaps generous approach in some cases delivered before the Court for case law clarification: see General Court, Romonta v Commission, Judgement, 26 September 2014, Case No T-614/13, ECLI:EU:T:2014:835, paras 28–38. The analysis of the locus standi has not been challenged in appeal: Court of Justice, Romonta v Commission, Order, 13 September 2016, Case No C-565/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2016:698. About this case law, see de Sadeleer and Poncelet 2013, p. 7.

  68. 68.

    Court of Justice, European Union Copper Task Force v Commission, Judgement, 13 March 2018, Case No C-384/16 P, ECLI:EU:C:2018:176, paras 44–70; for another example, see General Court, Eurofer v Commission Order, 4 June 2012, Case No T-381/11, ECLI:EU:T:2012:273, paras 41–63.

  69. 69.

    Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission Documents, 30 May 2001, OJEU 2001 L145, p. 43.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., Articles 7 and 8.

  71. 71.

    About the act open to challenge under Regulation 1049/2001, see General Court, Arca Capital Bohemia v Commission, Judgement, 11 December 2018, Case No T-440/17, ECLI:EU:T:2018:898, paras 16–20.

  72. 72.

    See e.g., General Court, Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission, Judgement, 21 November 2018, Case No T-545/11 RENV, ECLI:EU:T:2018:817 and Tweedale v EFSA, Judgement, 7 March 2019, Case No T-716/14, ECLI:EU:T:2019:141.

  73. 73.

    Court of First Instance, Greenpeace and Others v Commission, Order, 9 August 1995, Case No T-585/93, ECLI:EU:T:1995:147, paras 29–41.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., paras 48–58.

  75. 75.

    Court of Justice, Greenpeace and Others v Commission, Judgement, 2 April 1998, Case No C-321/95 P, ECLI:EU:C:1998:153.

  76. 76.

    Court of First Instance, Danielsson and Others v Commission, Order, 22 December 1995, Case No T-219/95 R, ECLI:EU:T:1995:219 and Sahlstedt and Others v Commission, Order, 22 June 2006, Case No T-150/05, ECLI:EU:T:2006:172; Court of Justice, Sahlstedt and Others v Commission, Judgement, 23 April 2009, Case No C-362/06 P, ECLI:EU:C:2009:243. In some cases, it is the lack of direct concern which has justify a dismissal: Court of First Instance, Freiherr von Cramer-Klett and Rechtlerverband Pfronten v Commission, Order, 22 June 2006, Case No T-136/04, ECLI:EU:T:2006:170.

  77. 77.

    Court of First Instance, EEB and Others v Commission, Order, 28 November 2005, Case No T-94/04, ECLI:EU:T:2005:425 (Order, dismiss) and Sweden v Commission, Judgement, 11 July 2007, Case No T-229/04, ECLI:EU:T:2007:217 (annulment).

  78. 78.

    See e.g., General Court, Associazione Granosalus v Commission, Order, 14 February 2019, Case No T-125/18, ECLI:EU:T:2019:92, paras 51–64.

  79. 79.

    Court of First Instance, WWF-UK v Council, Order, 2 June 2008, Case No T-91/07, ECLI:EU:T:2008:170, paras 80–82; Court of Justice, WWF-UK v Council, Order, 5 May 2009, Case No C-355/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2009:286.

  80. 80.

    The applicants hoped measures to combat climate change more ambitious. This action took place of a wider worldwide strategy, seeking to enhanced climate change policies thanks to legal actions. See Krämer 2019a, p. 213.

  81. 81.

    General Court, Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council, Order, 8 May 2019, Case No T-330/18, ECLI:EU:T:2019:324, paras 46–55. This judgment was confirmed on appeal: Court of Justice, Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council, Judgment, 25 March 2021, Case No C-565/19 P, ECLI:EU:C:2021:252. In the same vein, see Court of Justice, Sabo and Others v Parliament and Council, Order, 14 January 2021, Case No C-297/20 P, ECLI:EU:C:2021:24.

  82. 82.

    Court of Justice, Regione Siciliana v Commission, Judgement, 2 May 2006, Case No C-417/04 P, ECLI:EU:C:2006:282, paras 21–24.

  83. 83.

    However, the General Court recently held the Regulation introducing new standards on atmospheric emissions from motor vehicles after DieselGate directly affects the cities of Paris, Brussels and Madrid, due to their powers to restrict the circulation of motor vehicles in order to protect air quality. The action was held to be admissible since the contested regulation was, according to the General Court, a regulatory act not entailing implementing measures: General Court, Ville de Paris v Commission, Judgement, 13 December 2018, cases T-339/16, T-352/16 and T-391/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:927, paras 50–84. The question remains whether the Court will confirm this approach: see pending Case No C-178/19 C-179/19.

  84. 84.

    Court of First Instance, Região autónoma dos Açores v Council, Judgement, 1 July 2008, Case No T-37/04, ECLI:EU:T:2008:236; Court of Justice, Região autónoma dos Açores v Council, Order, 26 November 2009, Case No C-444/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2009:733.

  85. 85.

    General Court, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission, Order, 28 February 2019, Case No T-178/18, ECLI:EU:T:2019:130.

  86. 86.

    Court of Justice, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission, Judgement, 3 December 2020, Case No C-352/19 P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:978, paras 50–52.

  87. 87.

    See e.g., regarding to Aarhus Convention, above n 19, Mastroianni and Pezza 2014.

  88. 88.

    See e.g., Krämer 2017, p. 13.

  89. 89.

    See supra, Sect. 8.2.2.

  90. 90.

    Beyond the EU institutions, it is necessary to take into account the growing role of EU agencies in environmental matters, as the European Chemicals Agency or the European Food Safety Agency.

  91. 91.

    See Regulation (EC) 1367/2006, Articles 10 and 11.

  92. 92.

    Ibid., Article 12(1); the right of action also concerns the infringement by the institution sought of the rules on the review procedure laid down by the regulation: Article 12(2).

  93. 93.

    TFEU, Article 266. The EU courts shall not have jurisdiction to issue injunctions: General Court, PAN Europe v Commission, Order, 12 March 2014, Case No T-192/12, ECLI:EU:T:2014:152, para 15.

  94. 94.

    Court of Justice, TestBioTech and Others v Commission, Judgement, 12 September 2019, Case No C-82/17 P, ECLI:EU:C:2019:719, paras 38, 39, 67 and 68.

  95. 95.

    In a contribution published in 2018, the authors stated that 35 requests for review had been sent to the Commission. They had all resulted in a decision of inadmissibility or dismissal on the merits: see Brosset and Truilhé-Marengo 2018.

  96. 96.

    In that regard, see ibid.; de Sadeleer and Poncelet 2013; Pallemaerts 2011, p. 271.

  97. 97.

    Regulation (EC) 1367/2006, Article 11.

  98. 98.

    Ibid., Articles 2(1)(g) and 10(1).

  99. 99.

    General Court, TestBioTech v Commission, Judgement, 14 March 2018, Case No T-33/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:135.

  100. 100.

    Regulation (EC) 1367/2006, Article 10(1).

  101. 101.

    Ibid., Article 2(1)(g). The fact that it does not concern acts not having binding effects is consistent with the traditional case law concerning the act open to challenge. See Mariatte and Ritleng 2011, pp. 45 ss.

  102. 102.

    General Court, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and PAN v Commission, Judgement, 14 June 2012, Case No T-338/08, ECLI:EU:T:2012:300; General Court, Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission, Judgement, 14 June 2012, Case No T-396/09, ECLI:EU:T:2012:301.

  103. 103.

    Where the European Union intends to implement a particular obligation assumed in the context of the agreements concluded in the context of the World Trade Organization or where the EU act at issue refers explicitly to specific provisions of those agreements, the Court should review the legality of the act at issue and the acts adopted for its implementation in the light of the rules of those agreements: Court of Justice, Fediol v Commission, Judgement, 22 June 1989, Case No 70/87, ECLI:EU:C:1989:254, paras 19–23; Court of Justice, Nakajima All Precision v Council, Judgement, 7 May 1991, Case No C-69/89, ECLI:EU:C:1991:186 paras 29–32.

  104. 104.

    Court of Justice, Council and Others v Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht, Judgement, 13 January 2015, Cases No C-401/12 P, C-402/12 P and C-403/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2015:4 and Council and Commission v Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe, Judgement, 13 January 2015, Cases No C-404/12 P and C-405/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2015:5.

  105. 105.

    General Court, EEB v Commission, Order, 17 July 2015, Case No T-685/14, ECLI:EU:T:2015:560, paras 42–49.

  106. 106.

    General Court, Frank Bold v Commission, Order, 29 June 2015, Case No T-19/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:520, paras 39–45.

  107. 107.

    General Court, Mellifera v Commission, Judgement, 27 September 2018, Case No T-12/17, ECLI:EU:T:2018:616, paras 56–65. This judgment was confirmed on appeal: Court of Justice, Mellifera v Commission, Judgement, 3 September 2020, Case No C-784/18 P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:630. However, the Commission considered as admissible applications for review concerning genetically modified soybean marketing authorization, and the authorization of a chemical component, without explaining this admissibility in its decisions. In any cases, the admissibility had make possible a substantive debate before EU Courts: General Court, TestBioTech and Others v Commission, Judgement, 15 December 2016, Case No T-177/13, ECLI:EU:T:2016:736 and ClientEarth v Commission, Judgement, 4 April 2019, Case No T-108/17, ECLI:EU:T:2019:215.

  108. 108.

    National courts ruling at last instance shall be obliged in this respect: Court of Justice, CILFIT v Ministero della Sanità, Judgement, 6 October 1982, Case No 283/81, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335.

  109. 109.

    Court of Justice, Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost, Judgement, 22 October 1987, Case No 314/85, ECLI:EU:C:1987:452.

  110. 110.

    Court of Justice, Commission v France, Judgement, 4 October 2018, Case No C-416/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:811, paras 105–114.

  111. 111.

    In support of that proposal, one can refer to a book seeking to explain EU environmental law through a case-law study. Most of decisions listed are judgments given on references for a preliminary ruling. See Clément 2016.

  112. 112.

    Court of Justice, Enviro Tech (Europe) v Belgium, Judgement, 15 October 2009, Case No C-425/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:635.

  113. 113.

    General Court, Enviro Tech (Europe) and Enviro Tech International v Commission, Judgement, 16 December 2011, above n 47. The application also contained claim for damages. The General Court rejected it as unfounded, on the ground that the applicant had not succeeded in establishing manifest illegality of the Directive. The General Court’s examination was largely linked to the assessment made by the Court in that regard, which took the view that the question referred to it for a preliminary ruling did not support the conclusion that the Directive was unlawful.

  114. 114.

    See, thereto, Court of Justice, Gowan Comércio Internacional e Serviços, Judgement, 22 December 2010, Case No C-77/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:803 and Borealis and Others, Judgement, 8 September 2016, Case No C-180/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:647.

  115. 115.

    Court of Justice, Confédération paysanne and Others, Judgement, 25 July 2018, Case No C-528/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:583.

  116. 116.

    Court of Justice, Blaise and Others, Judgement, 1 October 2019, Case No C-616/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:800. For another example, relating to the Habitats Directive, see: Court of Justice, Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus, Judgement, 21 December 2016, Case No C-444/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:978, paras 40–64.

  117. 117.

    Court of Justice, European Union Copper Task Force v Commission, Judgement, 13 March 2018, above n 68, para 119; Court of First Instance, Freiherr von Cramer-Klett and Rechtlerverband Pfronten v Commission, Order, 22 June 2006, above n 76, para 55; General Court, Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council, above n 81, para 52.

  118. 118.

    See Fromont 2006.

  119. 119.

    For a survey of these directives and a presentation of those provisions, see Brosset and Truilhé-Marengo 2018.

  120. 120.

    On that case law, see ibid.; Delile 2016, p. 91 and Ryall 2019, p. 116.

  121. 121.

    About the relationship between direct effect and interpretation in conformity with EU law related to Aarhus Convention, see Schmied 2013, para 1061.

  122. 122.

    Court of Justice, Edwards and Pallikaropoulos, Judgement, 11 April 2013, Case No C-260/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:221, paras 25–35. Those questions were raised by United Kingdom courts, before which there are considerable risks in terms of costs (almost 100.000 GBP on the case Edwards and Pallikaropoulos). Subsequently, the Court found that the United Kingdom had failed to transpose correctly that obligation: Court of Justice, Commission v United Kingdom, Judgement, 13 February 2014, Case No C-530/11, ECLI:EU:C:2014:67, paras 44–63. The Court has clarified its jurisprudence in cases involving other Member States: North East Pylon Pressure Campaign and Sheehy, Judgement, 15 March 2018, Case No C-470/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:185.

  123. 123.

    Court of Justice, Solvay and Others, Judgement, 16 February 2012, Case No C-182/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:82, paras 105–110.

  124. 124.

    Court of Justice, ClientEarth, Judgement, 19 November 2014, Case No C-404/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2382, paras 50–58. However, this is not a genuine innovation, since the obligation to take interim measures to safeguard effectiveness of EU law is well-established: Court of Justice, Factortame, Judgement, 19 June 1990, Case No C-213/89, ECLI:EU:C:1990:257, para 21.

  125. 125.

    Court of Justice, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie, Judgement, 8 March 2011, above n 21.

  126. 126.

    Court of Justice, Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening, Judgement, 15 October 2009, Case No C-263/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:631, paras 40–52.

  127. 127.

    Ibid., paras 32–39.

  128. 128.

    Court of Justice, Boxus and Others, Judgement, 18 October 2011, Cases No C-128/09 to C-131/09, C-134/09 and C-135/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:667 and Solvay and Others, Judgement, 16 February 2012, above n 123.

  129. 129.

    Fromont 2006, pp. 178–179.

  130. 130.

    Court of Justice, Gemeinde Altrip and Others, Judgement, 7 November 2013, Case No C-72/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:712, paras 42–54.

  131. 131.

    Court of Justice, Gruber, Judgement, 16 April 2015, Case No C-570/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:231, paras 33 ss. Subsequently, Germany was found to have failed to fulfil its obligations to comply with the Impact Assessment Directive: Court of Justice, Commission v Germany, Judgement, 15 October 2015, Case No C-137/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:683.

  132. 132.

    Court of Justice, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen, Judgement, 12 May 2011, Case No C-115/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:289, paras 45–49.

  133. 133.

    Court of Justice, Janecek, Judgement, 25 July 2008, Case No C-237/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:447, paras 34–39; Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftschutz Umweltorganisation, Judgement, 20 December 2017, Case No C-664/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:987, paras 30–58 and Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland and Others, Judgement, 3 October 2019, Case No C-197/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:824, paras 30–46.

  134. 134.

    See Brosset and Truilhé-Marengo 2018 and Delile 2016

  135. 135.

    Findings and recommendations of the Aarhus Convention Compliance committee with regard to communication ACC/C/2008/32 (Part I) concerning compliance by the European Union, adopted on 14 April 2011.

  136. 136.

    Following Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention, a regional organization do not act as public authorities when it performs in its legislative capacity, with the effect that these forms of decision-making are not covered by Article 9 of the Convention.

  137. 137.

    See Sect. 8.3.2.2 above.

  138. 138.

    Findings and recommendations of the Aarhus Convention Compliance committee with regard to communication ACC/C/2008/32 (Part II) concerning compliance by the European Union, adopted on 17 March 2017.

  139. 139.

    See Sect. 8.3.2.3 above.

  140. 140.

    See Sects. 8.3.2.1 and 8.3.2.2 above.

  141. 141.

    Draft decision VI/8f in view of the sixth session of the meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention concerning compliance by the European Union with its obligations under the Convention, 30 June 2017.

  142. 142.

    Proposal for a Council Decision on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, at the sixth session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention regarding compliance case ACCC/C/2008/32, COM(2017) 366 final, 29 June 2017.

  143. 143.

    Decision (EU) No 2017/1346 of the Council on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, at the sixth session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention as regards compliance case ACCC/C/2008/32, 17 July 2017, OJEU 2017 L186, p. 15.

  144. 144.

    Krämer 2019b, pp. 795 ss.

  145. 145.

    Some consider that the case law is more flexible in certain spheres of economic law that in the field of environmental protection. See e.g., Krämer 2019a.

  146. 146.

    In disputes concerning State aid control or measures of the common commercial policy, the courts take into account, inter alia, the existence of procedural law or of factual circumstances showing that the applicants are individually concerned. About admissibility of actions concerning the review of State aid decisions or measures to protect trade, see e.g., Mariatte and Ritleng 2011, p. 104 ss. One should bear in mind that procedural rights existing in the field of State aid control or common commercial policy instrument does not have real equivalent in the environmental secondary legislation. In any case, procedural rights are not central when it comes to challenging the merits of a decision concerning State aid and, in the field of the common commercial policy, the case law takes account, inter alia, of the fact that undertakings established in third countries do not always have access to a national court capable of referring questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling (see e.g., Court of Justice, Allied Corporation e.a. v Commission, Judgement, 21 February 1984, Cases No 239/82 and 275/82, ECLI:EU:C:1984:68, paras 13 and 15).

  147. 147.

    It is not obvious that the specific solutions developed about direct effect of WTO law could lead to another solution. One has to take into account that the Court tends to apply those principles in a restrictive way: see Schmied 2013, paras 869 ss.

  148. 148.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending 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, 14 October 2020, COM(2020) 642 final.

References

  • Arnull A (1995) Private Applications and the action for annulment under Article 173 of the EC Treaty. Common Market Law Review 32:7–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barents R (2020) Remedies and Procedures Before the EU Courts. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Bétaille J (ed) (2016) Le droit à l’accès à la justice en matière d’environnement. Presses de l’Université de Toulouse 1 Capitole, Toulouse

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumann C (1997) Compétence communautaire et compétence nationale. In: Masclet J-C (ed) La Communauté européenne et l’environnement. La Documentation française, Paris, pp 63–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosset E, Truilhé-Marengo E (2018) L’accès au juge dans le domaine de l’environnement : le hiatus du droit de l’Union européenne. Revue des droits et libertés fondamentaux http://www.revuedlf.com/droit-ue/lacces-au-juge-dans-le-domaine-de-lenvironnement-le-hiatus-du-droit-de-lunion-europeenne/

  • Cartier-Bresson A, Dero-Bugny D (eds) (2020) Les réformes de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Clément M (2016) Droit européen de l’environnement. Larcier, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Coutron L (2014) L’héritage de l’arrêt UPA. L’Actualité juridique. Droit administratif 548–556

    Google Scholar 

  • de Sadeleer N (2012) Particularités de la subsidiarité dans le domaine de l’environnement. Droit et société 1:73–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Sadeleer N, Poncelet C (2013) Contestation des actes des institutions de l’Union européenne à l’épreuve de la Convention d’Aarhus. Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen 1:7–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Delile J-F (2016) La protection juridictionnelle dans le domaine environnemental en droit de l’Union européenne : la victoire de l’incohérence. In: Bétaille J (ed) Le droit d’accès à la justice en matière d'environnement. Presses de l’Université Toulouse 1 Capitole, pp 91–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubout E (2007) Le ‘contentieux de la troisième génération’ ou l’incomplétude du système juridictionnel communautaire. Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen 3:427–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Fromont M (2006) Droit administratif des États européens. Presses universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovar R (1999) L’identification des actes normatifs en droit communautaire. In: Dony M, De Walsche A (eds) Mélanges en hommage à Michel Waelbroeck. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 387–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2004) Data on Environmental Judgments by the EC Court of Justice. Journal for European Enviromental & Planning Law 1:127–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2009) The environmental complaint in EU law. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 1:13–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2016) EU Environmental Law. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2017) Accès à la justice en matière d’environnement - La double mesure de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne. Revue du droit de l’Union européenne 1:13–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2019a) Changement climatique, droits fondamentaux et accès à la justice. Revue du droit de l’Union européenne, 2019 1:213–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2019b) Protection de l’environnement. In: Blumman C, Picod F (eds) Annuaire de droit de l’Union européenne – 2017. Editions Panthéon-Assas, Paris, p 795

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (1993) The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Environment in the European Union: Keeping the Balance of Federalism. Fordham International Law Journal 17:846–895

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2009) La systémique des voies de recours dans l’ordre juridique de l’Union européenne. In: De Walsche A, Levi L (eds) Mélanges en hommage à Georges Vandersanden. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 257–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K, Arts D, Maselis I (2014) EU Procedural Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Maljean-Dubois S (ed) (2017) The Effectiveness of Environmental Law. Intersentia, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mariatte F, Ritleng D (2011) Contentieux de l’Union européenne/1. Lamy, Rueil-Malmaison

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastroianni R, Pezza A (2014) Access of individuals to the European Court of Justice of the European Union under the new text of Article 263, para. 4, TFEU. Rivista Italiana di Diritto Pubblico Comunitario, 5:923–948

    Google Scholar 

  • Naômé C (2016) Le pourvoi devant la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne. Larcier, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallemaerts M (2011) Access to Environmental Justice at EU Level: has the ‘Aarhus Regulation’ improved the Situation? In: Pallemaerts M (ed) The Aarhus Convention at Ten: Interactions and Tensions between Conventional International Law and EU Environmental Law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 271–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryall A (2019) The Aarhus Convention: Standards for Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. In: Turner S et al. (eds) Environmental Rights: The Development of Standards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 116–146

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schmied F (2013) Les effets des accords de l’OMC dans l’ordre juridique de l’Union européenne et de ses Etats membres. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Truilhé È, Hautereau-Boutonnet M (2019) Le procès environnemental - Rapport final de recherche. http://www.gip-recherche-justice.fr/publication/le-proces-environnemental-du-proces-sur-lenvironnement-au-proces-pour-lenvironnement/. Accessed 30 April 2021

  • Wildemeersch J (2014) L’article 263, alinéa 4, du traité FUE : une modification des conditions de recevabilité du recours en annulation sans (véritables) conséquences. In: Mahieu S (ed) Contentieux de l’Union européenne. Questions choisies. Larcier, Brussels, pp 155–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildemeersch J (2019) Contentieux de la légalité des actes de l’Union européenne : le mythe du droit à un recours effectif. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sorbonne Nouvelle University—ICEE; General Court of the EU, 13, rue de Santeuil, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, Paris, France

    Olivier Peiffert

Authors
  1. Olivier Peiffert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Peiffert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ESILA, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Edgardo Sobenes

  2. Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Sarah Mead

  3. Université Paris Nanterre, Angers, France

    Benjamin Samson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Peiffert, O. (2022). European Union Court System and the Protection of the Environment. In: Sobenes, E., Mead, S., Samson, B. (eds) The Environment Through the Lens of International Courts and Tribunals. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-507-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-507-2_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-506-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-507-2

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation