Pub Date : 2020-07-10DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01703007
K. Pouikli
The aim of this paper is to unpack the latest developments on the right to clean water and sanitation through the lens of environmental injustice against Roma ethnic populations. Namely, the Hudorovic and Others v. Slovenia judgment by the ECtHR puts the spotlight on the dynamics of discrimination against Roma communities relating to the access to fundamental environmental goods and services such as adequate sanitation and potable water. More specifically, the main research focus revolves around the question of whether the human-rights protection regime provides for an effective toolbox for the realization of the water- and sanitation-related rights of minorities groups in a country where the right to water is constitutionally recognized. This case fueled a timely debate regarding the right to safe water and proper sanitation across EU, given that the new Drinking Water Directive raises the bar with respect to the obligations on Member States to take measures to ensure that all citizens -and in particular vulnerable and marginalised groups- are connected to the distribution network.
{"title":"From a Beacon of Hope to a Question Mark: Right to Clean Water and Sanitation across Europe in the Wake of the ECtHR Judgment Hudorovic and Others v. Slovenia","authors":"K. Pouikli","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01703007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01703007","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to unpack the latest developments on the right to clean water and sanitation through the lens of environmental injustice against Roma ethnic populations. Namely, the Hudorovic and Others v. Slovenia judgment by the ECtHR puts the spotlight on the dynamics of discrimination against Roma communities relating to the access to fundamental environmental goods and services such as adequate sanitation and potable water. More specifically, the main research focus revolves around the question of whether the human-rights protection regime provides for an effective toolbox for the realization of the water- and sanitation-related rights of minorities groups in a country where the right to water is constitutionally recognized. This case fueled a timely debate regarding the right to safe water and proper sanitation across EU, given that the new Drinking Water Directive raises the bar with respect to the obligations on Member States to take measures to ensure that all citizens -and in particular vulnerable and marginalised groups- are connected to the distribution network.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"17 1","pages":"351-365"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01703007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42154217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-10DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01703006
Liz Tigelaar
Sustainability leads to the construction of more wind turbines on land. This installation is governed by rules of public law. Local residents living in the vicinity of wind turbines fear for their health and for the loss of value of their homes. This contribution examines whether and to what extent Dutch liability law offers the possibility to local residents to receive compensation for this damage. The Principles of European Tort Law are also addressed.
{"title":"Could Local Residents Living Close to Wind Turbines Be Compensated for Damage to Their Health and Loss of Value of Their Homes?","authors":"Liz Tigelaar","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01703006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01703006","url":null,"abstract":"Sustainability leads to the construction of more wind turbines on land. This installation is governed by rules of public law. Local residents living in the vicinity of wind turbines fear for their health and for the loss of value of their homes. This contribution examines whether and to what extent Dutch liability law offers the possibility to local residents to receive compensation for this damage. The Principles of European Tort Law are also addressed.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01703006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42090598","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-10DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01703005
Thomas Schomerus
In the Dutch Urgenda and the German Family Farmers’ cases, the claimants sued the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, according to their national programmes. On the Dutch side, the claimants won in three instances up to the Supreme Court, while they lost at the German Administration Court of Berlin. A main factual difference between the two situations is that in the Netherlands, the Dutch government had, to a certain extent, withdrawn from its initial positions on climate policy. The judgments show that climate change litigation is necessary to gain progress towards a greater understanding of state institution roles in addressing the global threat of climate change, culminating in a better fulfilment of climate change goals.
{"title":"Climate Change Litigation: German Family Farmers and Urgenda – Similar Cases, Differing Judgments","authors":"Thomas Schomerus","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01703005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01703005","url":null,"abstract":"In the Dutch Urgenda and the German Family Farmers’ cases, the claimants sued the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, according to their national programmes. On the Dutch side, the claimants won in three instances up to the Supreme Court, while they lost at the German Administration Court of Berlin. A main factual difference between the two situations is that in the Netherlands, the Dutch government had, to a certain extent, withdrawn from its initial positions on climate policy. The judgments show that climate change litigation is necessary to gain progress towards a greater understanding of state institution roles in addressing the global threat of climate change, culminating in a better fulfilment of climate change goals.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01703005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44519677","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-10DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01703003
L. Krämer
The green deal, a strategy programme by the European Commission, intends to “green” the EU activities and re-orient policies and laws for the years to come, in areas such as climate and energy, agriculture and fisheries, products and services, and trade and foreign policy, the most important announcement being the adoption of an EU climate law which will ensure EU climate neutrality by 2050. This contribution tries to place the different elements of the green deal strategy into their environmental context and also to assess the probability that the proposed measures will be agreed by the European Parliament and by the Council (the Member States’ governments).
{"title":"Planning for Climate and the Environment: the EU Green Deal","authors":"L. Krämer","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01703003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01703003","url":null,"abstract":"The green deal, a strategy programme by the European Commission, intends to “green” the EU activities and re-orient policies and laws for the years to come, in areas such as climate and energy, agriculture and fisheries, products and services, and trade and foreign policy, the most important announcement being the adoption of an EU climate law which will ensure EU climate neutrality by 2050. This contribution tries to place the different elements of the green deal strategy into their environmental context and also to assess the probability that the proposed measures will be agreed by the European Parliament and by the Council (the Member States’ governments).","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01703003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43485729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-12DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01702007
Kendro Pedrosa
In the Craeynest case, the Court of Justice interpreted some of the core provisions of the Air Quality Directive 2008/50 in a preliminary ruling. Firstly, the court ruled that national courts may review the siting of sampling points. This manuscript pays special attention to the minimum standard of review that national judges must perform and considers to what extent the Court of Justice departs from its established case law. Secondly, the Court considered that, for an exceedance of a limit value within a zone to exist, it suffices that a pollution level higher than that value is measured at a single sampling point. Thus, the results of all sampling points within a zone must not be averaged. The ruling can be considered as a landmark judgment, as it strengthens the role of citizens, engo’s and national courts in the decentral enforcement of the Air Quality Directive.
{"title":"The Decentralised Enforcement of the Provisions on Measurement and Assessment of Air Quality under Directive 2008/50/EC","authors":"Kendro Pedrosa","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01702007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01702007","url":null,"abstract":"In the Craeynest case, the Court of Justice interpreted some of the core provisions of the Air Quality Directive 2008/50 in a preliminary ruling. Firstly, the court ruled that national courts may review the siting of sampling points. This manuscript pays special attention to the minimum standard of review that national judges must perform and considers to what extent the Court of Justice departs from its established case law. Secondly, the Court considered that, for an exceedance of a limit value within a zone to exist, it suffices that a pollution level higher than that value is measured at a single sampling point. Thus, the results of all sampling points within a zone must not be averaged. The ruling can be considered as a landmark judgment, as it strengthens the role of citizens, engo’s and national courts in the decentral enforcement of the Air Quality Directive.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"17 1","pages":"247-261"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01702007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45681632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-12DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01702004
Farah Bouquelle, L. Lavrysen
The article introduces international, European and Belgian legislation on trade in endangered species of wild animals and plants and discusses the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking. Notably, this contribution provides empirical insights in the functioning of the Belgian system for enforcement of wildlife trafficking regulations and provides a first set of empirical data on the effectiveness of criminal charges in this field of EU environmental law. To this extent, the four reviewed Belgian judgments are examples of effective criminal sanctioning of wildlife crime. They also show that wildlife crime is hot and organised, and that Belgium is both a final destination market for live birds and reptiles and a transit point for trafficking of ivory and sea horses to other continents, such as Asia. To meet the targets of the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking, the fight against wild life trafficking should be stepped up. As regards Belgium, this manuscript highlights that the federal state and the three regions should better coordinate their CITES policy and legislation. In view of the increase of CITES-cases, the training and capacity of the inspection, customs and police services should be strengthened further. More frequent controls at the airports and ports would increase the chance of being caught. The environmental unit of the federal police should be reinforced. Moreover, a federal CITES public prosecutor could be appointed for serious CITES cases in which there are links with terrorism and organised crime. More research capacity and international cooperation would allow to tackle not only the couriers, but the principals and addressees in the countries of origin and destination. Finally, the assignment of CITES cases to specialised sections of the courts would contribute to more efficiency and better continuity in the interpretation and enforcement of CITES regulations.
{"title":"EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking – Recent Belgian Criminal Cases","authors":"Farah Bouquelle, L. Lavrysen","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01702004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01702004","url":null,"abstract":"The article introduces international, European and Belgian legislation on trade in endangered species of wild animals and plants and discusses the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking. Notably, this contribution provides empirical insights in the functioning of the Belgian system for enforcement of wildlife trafficking regulations and provides a first set of empirical data on the effectiveness of criminal charges in this field of EU environmental law. To this extent, the four reviewed Belgian judgments are examples of effective criminal sanctioning of wildlife crime. They also show that wildlife crime is hot and organised, and that Belgium is both a final destination market for live birds and reptiles and a transit point for trafficking of ivory and sea horses to other continents, such as Asia. \u0000 \u0000To meet the targets of the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking, the fight against wild life trafficking should be stepped up. As regards Belgium, this manuscript highlights that the federal state and the three regions should better coordinate their CITES policy and legislation. In view of the increase of CITES-cases, the training and capacity of the inspection, customs and police services should be strengthened further. More frequent controls at the airports and ports would increase the chance of being caught. The environmental unit of the federal police should be reinforced. Moreover, a federal CITES public prosecutor could be appointed for serious CITES cases in which there are links with terrorism and organised crime. More research capacity and international cooperation would allow to tackle not only the couriers, but the principals and addressees in the countries of origin and destination. \u0000 \u0000Finally, the assignment of CITES cases to specialised sections of the courts would contribute to more efficiency and better continuity in the interpretation and enforcement of CITES regulations.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"17 1","pages":"161-188"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01702004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44337307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-12DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01702005
Anna Vanhellemont
Literature on environmental reporting by Member States and the Commission is scarce. Furthermore, the way in which environmental reporting is construed in EU legislation and takes place in practice in the Member States, has only recently been subject to a comprehensive review. Following the 2017 Fitness Check of environmental reporting and subsequent action plan, on which a progress report was published in June 2019, it is high time to look at the state of environmental reporting in the EU. This article looks into several provisions and practices of environmental reporting from the perspective of legal certainty, transparency and, more specifically, access to environmental information. Environmental monitoring and reporting are essential to ensure proper implementation of and compliance with EU environmental legislation. However, discrepancies in legislation and issues in reporting practices can be noted. The Commission has taken several initiatives to streamline and improve environmental reporting, the most significant example being the adoption of Regulation 2019/1010 to align the reporting obligations in the field of environmental policy. Nevertheless, it seems there is still room for improvement. The article concludes with a look into the future of environmental reporting requirements, asking the question what more can be done.
{"title":"Environmental Reporting by the EU Member States and the Commission – Current Practices, Legislative Action and a Way Forward","authors":"Anna Vanhellemont","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01702005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01702005","url":null,"abstract":"Literature on environmental reporting by Member States and the Commission is scarce. Furthermore, the way in which environmental reporting is construed in EU legislation and takes place in practice in the Member States, has only recently been subject to a comprehensive review. Following the 2017 Fitness Check of environmental reporting and subsequent action plan, on which a progress report was published in June 2019, it is high time to look at the state of environmental reporting in the EU. This article looks into several provisions and practices of environmental reporting from the perspective of legal certainty, transparency and, more specifically, access to environmental information. Environmental monitoring and reporting are essential to ensure proper implementation of and compliance with EU environmental legislation. However, discrepancies in legislation and issues in reporting practices can be noted. The Commission has taken several initiatives to streamline and improve environmental reporting, the most significant example being the adoption of Regulation 2019/1010 to align the reporting obligations in the field of environmental policy. Nevertheless, it seems there is still room for improvement. The article concludes with a look into the future of environmental reporting requirements, asking the question what more can be done.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"17 1","pages":"189-228"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01702005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47353915","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-12DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01702003
C. Streck, M. Unger, S. Greiner
The 25th session of the Conference of the Parties (cop-25) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (unfccc) became the longest cop on record – but yielded few results. It appears that four years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, enthusiasm has waned and political bargaining and bean-counting have taken over. Countries, for even the slightest chance to keep temperatures ‘well below’ 2 degrees Celsius, must do much more than they have previously committed to and accelerate the shift towards a zero-carbon economy. However, the conference largely failed to heed the rallying cry of the Chilean presidency. The flagship decisions (grouped under the banner “Chile-Madrid Time for Action”) neither produced new commitments – enhancing ambition or finance for developing countries – nor new rules that would nudge countries closer to the climate action targets needed. The leftover pieces from last year’s negotiations of the “Paris Rulebook” were also not resolved, in particular the unfinished decisions on Article 6 on market- and non-market mechanisms. The procrastination shows that the new architecture of the Paris Agreement, while addressing several of the shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol, suffers from its own weaknesses. The meager results of Madrid give reason to pause and reflect on the conditions that may hold countries back from fully embracing the Paris Agreement, but also to consider the future and nature of carbon markets and what is making the issue so difficult to resolve.
{"title":"cop 25: Losing Sight of (Raising) Ambition","authors":"C. Streck, M. Unger, S. Greiner","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01702003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01702003","url":null,"abstract":"The 25th session of the Conference of the Parties (cop-25) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (unfccc) became the longest cop on record – but yielded few results. It appears that four years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, enthusiasm has waned and political bargaining and bean-counting have taken over. Countries, for even the slightest chance to keep temperatures ‘well below’ 2 degrees Celsius, must do much more than they have previously committed to and accelerate the shift towards a zero-carbon economy. However, the conference largely failed to heed the rallying cry of the Chilean presidency. The flagship decisions (grouped under the banner “Chile-Madrid Time for Action”) neither produced new commitments – enhancing ambition or finance for developing countries – nor new rules that would nudge countries closer to the climate action targets needed. The leftover pieces from last year’s negotiations of the “Paris Rulebook” were also not resolved, in particular the unfinished decisions on Article 6 on market- and non-market mechanisms. The procrastination shows that the new architecture of the Paris Agreement, while addressing several of the shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol, suffers from its own weaknesses. The meager results of Madrid give reason to pause and reflect on the conditions that may hold countries back from fully embracing the Paris Agreement, but also to consider the future and nature of carbon markets and what is making the issue so difficult to resolve.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"17 1","pages":"136-160"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01702003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44831203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-12DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01702002
L. Squintani
{"title":"Addressing the (Lack of) Effectiveness of Environmental Law and the Gap between Law in the Books and Law in Action","authors":"L. Squintani","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01702002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01702002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"17 1","pages":"133-135"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01702002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46186935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-25DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01701009
Jan Darpö
This article is a comment to the judgement from October last year by the European Court of Justice’s in the Tapiola case (C-674/17). It can be seen as a follow-up to what I wrote about the Advocate General Henrik Øe’s opinion in the case, which was published in last issue of this journal (J. Darpö, Anything goes, jeepl 2019(3) 305–318). The case concerns a request for a preliminary ruling from the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court about the possibilities open under Article 16(1)(e) of the Habitats Directive (92/43) to perform license hunts on a strictly protected species listed under Annex iv to that Directive, namely the wolf (Canis lupus). This comment first describes the main points in the findings of the cjeu. Thereafter, a discussion follows focusing on three issues. The first concerns the relationship between Article 16(1)(e) of the Habitats Directive and the other derogation grounds in that provision from the strict protection of species. The next issue deals with the relationship between Annex iv and Annex V species, an issue linked to the assessment of the conservation status. The final question relates to how this conservation status is decided concerning species which roam over vast territories, not bothering about administrative restrictions such as national boarders or international obligations. At the end, I will make some concluding remarks about the wider implications of the judgement for the species protection under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive (2009/147).
{"title":"The Last Say? Comment on cjeus Judgement in the Tapiola Case (C-674/17)","authors":"Jan Darpö","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01701009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01701009","url":null,"abstract":"This article is a comment to the judgement from October last year by the European Court of Justice’s in the Tapiola case (C-674/17). It can be seen as a follow-up to what I wrote about the Advocate General Henrik Øe’s opinion in the case, which was published in last issue of this journal (J. Darpö, Anything goes, \u0000jeepl\u0000 2019(3) 305–318). The case concerns a request for a preliminary ruling from the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court about the possibilities open under Article 16(1)(e) of the Habitats Directive (92/43) to perform license hunts on a strictly protected species listed under Annex iv to that Directive, namely the wolf (Canis lupus). This comment first describes the main points in the findings of the cjeu. Thereafter, a discussion follows focusing on three issues. The first concerns the relationship between Article 16(1)(e) of the Habitats Directive and the other derogation grounds in that provision from the strict protection of species. The next issue deals with the relationship between Annex iv and Annex V species, an issue linked to the assessment of the conservation status. The final question relates to how this conservation status is decided concerning species which roam over vast territories, not bothering about administrative restrictions such as national boarders or international obligations. At the end, I will make some concluding remarks about the wider implications of the judgement for the species protection under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive (2009/147).","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01701009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49143395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：