获得环境正义和欧盟机构遵守《奥胡斯公约》:一条比预期更漫长、更曲折的道路

Martin Hedemann-Robinson
{"title":"获得环境正义和欧盟机构遵守《奥胡斯公约》:一条比预期更漫长、更曲折的道路","authors":"Martin Hedemann-Robinson","doi":"10.54648/eelr2022012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article is to track through and offer some reflections on the efforts by the European Union (EU) to ensure that EU law adequately implements the access to environmental justice obligations set down in the 1998 Aarhus Convention (AC) with respect to activities carried out by its supranational institutions and other Union bodies. For a number of years the EU has struggled to ensure its legal framework is in conformity with the Convention’s requirements concerning access to justice, not least in the wake of adverse findings expressed by the Convention’s Compliance Committee responding to complaints from members of the public. However, matters appear to have improved significantly in October 2021 with the adoption of EU Regulation 2021/1767 amending the Union’s legislative rules on an internal review mechanism of EU administrative acts or omissions alleged by members of the public to contravene EU environmental law (namely the ‘Aarhus Regulation’ 1367/2006). Whilst this article considers that most of the key issues relating to noncompliance have now been addressed satisfactorily, much of the credit for this ultimately lies with the European Parliament and Council of the EU as primary co-legislators rather than other key Union institutional actors such as the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). At the same time, this recent legislative innovation has not enabled the EU to reach its destination of achieving full compliance with the Convention over access to environmental justice, with some important administrative activities affecting the environment still remaining exempt from the Union’s internal review system such as EU decisions on state aid.","PeriodicalId":53610,"journal":{"name":"European Energy and Environmental Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Access to Environmental Justice and European Union Institutional Compliance With the Aarhus Convention: A Rather Longer and More Winding Road than Anticipated\",\"authors\":\"Martin Hedemann-Robinson\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/eelr2022012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this article is to track through and offer some reflections on the efforts by the European Union (EU) to ensure that EU law adequately implements the access to environmental justice obligations set down in the 1998 Aarhus Convention (AC) with respect to activities carried out by its supranational institutions and other Union bodies. For a number of years the EU has struggled to ensure its legal framework is in conformity with the Convention’s requirements concerning access to justice, not least in the wake of adverse findings expressed by the Convention’s Compliance Committee responding to complaints from members of the public. However, matters appear to have improved significantly in October 2021 with the adoption of EU Regulation 2021/1767 amending the Union’s legislative rules on an internal review mechanism of EU administrative acts or omissions alleged by members of the public to contravene EU environmental law (namely the ‘Aarhus Regulation’ 1367/2006). Whilst this article considers that most of the key issues relating to noncompliance have now been addressed satisfactorily, much of the credit for this ultimately lies with the European Parliament and Council of the EU as primary co-legislators rather than other key Union institutional actors such as the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). At the same time, this recent legislative innovation has not enabled the EU to reach its destination of achieving full compliance with the Convention over access to environmental justice, with some important administrative activities affecting the environment still remaining exempt from the Union’s internal review system such as EU decisions on state aid.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Energy and Environmental Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Energy and Environmental Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/eelr2022012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Energy and Environmental Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eelr2022012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文的目的是追踪并反思欧盟(EU)为确保欧盟法律充分履行1998年《奥胡斯公约》(AC)中关于超国家机构和其他联盟机构开展活动的环境正义义务所做的努力。多年来,欧盟一直在努力确保其法律框架符合《公约》关于诉诸司法的要求,尤其是在《公约》的遵守委员会对公众的投诉作出回应后,提出了不利的调查结果。然而,随着2021年10月欧盟第2021/1767号条例的通过(即第1367/2006号“奥胡斯条例”),情况似乎有了显著改善,该条例修订了欧盟关于公众指称违反欧盟环境法的欧盟行政行为或不作为的内部审查机制的立法规则。虽然本文认为与不合规相关的大多数关键问题现在已经得到了令人满意的解决,但这在很大程度上最终归功于欧洲议会和欧盟理事会作为主要的共同立法者,而不是其他关键的联盟机构参与者,如欧盟委员会或欧盟法院(CJEU)。与此同时,最近的立法创新并没有使欧盟达到在获得环境司法方面完全遵守《公约》的目标,一些影响环境的重要行政活动仍然不受欧盟内部审查制度的约束,例如欧盟关于国家援助的决定。
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 and European Union Institutional Compliance With the Aarhus Convention: A Rather Longer and More Winding Road than Anticipated
The aim of this article is to track through and offer some reflections on the efforts by the European Union (EU) to ensure that EU law adequately implements the access to environmental justice obligations set down in the 1998 Aarhus Convention (AC) with respect to activities carried out by its supranational institutions and other Union bodies. For a number of years the EU has struggled to ensure its legal framework is in conformity with the Convention’s requirements concerning access to justice, not least in the wake of adverse findings expressed by the Convention’s Compliance Committee responding to complaints from members of the public. However, matters appear to have improved significantly in October 2021 with the adoption of EU Regulation 2021/1767 amending the Union’s legislative rules on an internal review mechanism of EU administrative acts or omissions alleged by members of the public to contravene EU environmental law (namely the ‘Aarhus Regulation’ 1367/2006). Whilst this article considers that most of the key issues relating to noncompliance have now been addressed satisfactorily, much of the credit for this ultimately lies with the European Parliament and Council of the EU as primary co-legislators rather than other key Union institutional actors such as the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). At the same time, this recent legislative innovation has not enabled the EU to reach its destination of achieving full compliance with the Convention over access to environmental justice, with some important administrative activities affecting the environment still remaining exempt from the Union’s internal review system such as EU decisions on state aid.
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
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Legal Framework of the Direct Line in the European Union Law Regulating Industrial Emissions, Water Management or Aquatic Biodiversity? Navigating the Evolving European Legal Landscape on Waters Nature Restoration and Agriculture and Forestry: At the Opposite Side of the Fighting Ring or Compatible After All? An Analysis of the Proposal and the Final Agreement on the Nature Restoration Law Pandemics and Climate Change as Systemic Risks: Law, Policy, Insurance, Physical Activity and Exercise as Mitigating Environmental Degradation Mechanisms Strengthening European Energy Security and Resilience through Minerals
×
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