The Interrelation between Public Participation and Access to Justice in the eia Context in the Face of the Increasing Use of Digital Technologies: Comment on the cjeu Judgment in the A.Flausch et al Case (C-280/18)

Vasiliki Karageorgou
{"title":"The Interrelation between Public Participation and Access to Justice in the eia Context in the Face of the Increasing Use of Digital Technologies: Comment on the cjeu Judgment in the A.Flausch et al Case (C-280/18)","authors":"Vasiliki Karageorgou","doi":"10.1163/18760104-18010004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe article analyzes the cjeu Judgment in the A. Flausch et al case, which concerns the compatibility of the Greek procedural rules relating to specific aspects of the public participation in the eia context and to a specific aspect of access to justice (time limit) with the respective EU Law provisions in the face of the increasing use of digital technologies in the public participation procedures. This ruling is important, because it sets limits to the procedural autonomy of ms when it comes to the rules that are applied to the eia-related disputes and those that concern the public participation arrangements. It demonstrates, though, the lack of a steady line in the Court’s jurisprudence concerning the standards for assessing the national procedural rules and the role of Article 47 cfr. Moreover, the Court did not lay the ground for an interpretation of the ΕU public participation provisions in a way that an obligation for taking measures could be established, with the aim to ensure equal participation opportunities.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"18 1","pages":"39-55"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-18010004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article analyzes the cjeu Judgment in the A. Flausch et al case, which concerns the compatibility of the Greek procedural rules relating to specific aspects of the public participation in the eia context and to a specific aspect of access to justice (time limit) with the respective EU Law provisions in the face of the increasing use of digital technologies in the public participation procedures. This ruling is important, because it sets limits to the procedural autonomy of ms when it comes to the rules that are applied to the eia-related disputes and those that concern the public participation arrangements. It demonstrates, though, the lack of a steady line in the Court’s jurisprudence concerning the standards for assessing the national procedural rules and the role of Article 47 cfr. Moreover, the Court did not lay the ground for an interpretation of the ΕU public participation provisions in a way that an obligation for taking measures could be established, with the aim to ensure equal participation opportunities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
面对数字技术的日益普及,环境影响评估背景下公众参与与诉诸司法之间的相互关系——评A.Flausch等人案的法院判决(C-280/18)
本文分析了法院在a . Flausch等人案件中的判决,该案件涉及在公众参与环境影响评估的背景下,希腊程序规则与公众参与的特定方面以及诉诸司法的特定方面(时间限制)的兼容性,面对在公众参与程序中越来越多地使用数字技术的情况下,这些程序规则与各自的欧盟法律规定有关。这一裁决很重要,因为它限制了国务院在处理环境影响评估相关纠纷和涉及公众参与安排的规则方面的程序自主权。不过,它表明,法院在评估国家程序规则的标准和联邦法典第47条的作用方面缺乏一条稳定的法理路线。此外,法院并没有为解释ΕU公众参与条款奠定基础,以便确立采取措施的义务,以确保平等的参与机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Contributors Contributors Front matter Editorial The EU Battle on the Last Word and the Environment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1