环境正义的获得:欧洲法院的双重标准

L. Krämer
{"title":"环境正义的获得:欧洲法院的双重标准","authors":"L. Krämer","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01402003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In its findings of 27 June 2016, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee concluded that European Union “failed to comply with Article 9 paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Convention with regard to access to justice by members of the public, because neither the Aarhus legislation nor the jurisprudence of the ECJ implements or complies with the obligations under these paragraphs”. Against this backdrop, the present contribution retraces the jurisprudence of the ECJ on access to justice in environmental matters, evaluates its compatibility with the Aarhus Convention and compares it with the ECJ’s practice in economic cases, in particular in the area of State aid. It is shown, i. a., that the ECJ denies NGOs access to justice with regard to acts and omissions of EU institutions and how this is in breach with both EU environmental laws and Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. It is also shown that the Court of Justice is much stricter with regard to the admissibility of actions which try to protect the environment than it is with regard to actions, where economic interests are at stake.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":"14 1","pages":"159-185"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01402003","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Access to Environmental Justice: the Double Standards of the ecj\",\"authors\":\"L. Krämer\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18760104-01402003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In its findings of 27 June 2016, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee concluded that European Union “failed to comply with Article 9 paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Convention with regard to access to justice by members of the public, because neither the Aarhus legislation nor the jurisprudence of the ECJ implements or complies with the obligations under these paragraphs”. Against this backdrop, the present contribution retraces the jurisprudence of the ECJ on access to justice in environmental matters, evaluates its compatibility with the Aarhus Convention and compares it with the ECJ’s practice in economic cases, in particular in the area of State aid. It is shown, i. a., that the ECJ denies NGOs access to justice with regard to acts and omissions of EU institutions and how this is in breach with both EU environmental laws and Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. It is also shown that the Court of Justice is much stricter with regard to the admissibility of actions which try to protect the environment than it is with regard to actions, where economic interests are at stake.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"159-185\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01402003\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01402003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01402003","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: 4

摘要

在2016年6月27日的调查结果中,奥胡斯公约遵守委员会得出结论,欧盟“未能遵守《公约》第九条第3款和第4款关于公众诉诸司法的规定,因为奥胡斯立法和欧洲法院的判例都没有履行或遵守这些条款规定的义务”。在此背景下,本报告回顾了欧洲法院在环境问题上诉诸司法的判例,评估了其与《奥胡斯公约》的兼容性,并将其与欧洲法院在经济案件中的做法,特别是在国家援助领域的做法进行了比较。事实表明,欧洲法院拒绝非政府组织就欧盟机构的作为和不作为以及这如何违反欧盟环境法和《奥胡斯公约》第9(3)条诉诸司法。还表明,与涉及经济利益的行动相比,法院在试图保护环境的行动的可受理性方面要严格得多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Access to Environmental Justice: the Double Standards of the ecj
In its findings of 27 June 2016, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee concluded that European Union “failed to comply with Article 9 paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Convention with regard to access to justice by members of the public, because neither the Aarhus legislation nor the jurisprudence of the ECJ implements or complies with the obligations under these paragraphs”. Against this backdrop, the present contribution retraces the jurisprudence of the ECJ on access to justice in environmental matters, evaluates its compatibility with the Aarhus Convention and compares it with the ECJ’s practice in economic cases, in particular in the area of State aid. It is shown, i. a., that the ECJ denies NGOs access to justice with regard to acts and omissions of EU institutions and how this is in breach with both EU environmental laws and Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. It is also shown that the Court of Justice is much stricter with regard to the admissibility of actions which try to protect the environment than it is with regard to actions, where economic interests are at stake.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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