R(怀亚特)诉法勒姆区议会:最坏的情况和栖息地保护

Q2 Social Sciences Environmental Law Review Pub Date : 2022-11-30 DOI:10.1177/14614529221141669
E. Lees
{"title":"R(怀亚特)诉法勒姆区议会:最坏的情况和栖息地保护","authors":"E. Lees","doi":"10.1177/14614529221141669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Court of Appeal has once again addressed the rules under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 1 / Habitats Directive 2 in R (Wyatt) v Fareham Borough Council . 3 Whilst the Court expli-citly states that there are no new questions of law in this case, 4 the judgment of Lindblom LJ is nevertheless signi fi cant in the way that it treats disputes concerning expert guidance and evidence in relation to conservation. The legal principles being applied were indeed settled, but the clarity of their expression in this judgment is very helpful. The case provides a useful, up-to-date summary of the tests which have been developed by the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) 5 and the domestic courts in relation to the lawfulness of appropriate assessments under regulation 63 Habitats Regulations/ article 6 Habitats Directive. It also explores the relationships between Court, administrative authority, expert administrative agencies, and other scienti fi c advisors. I have explored the complex power relationships that have emerged in the operation of the Habitats Directive in respect of these actors elsewhere. 6 This judgment goes a long way to presenting a clear and accurate snapshot of how those relationships (should) work.","PeriodicalId":52213,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Law Review","volume":"45 1","pages":"314 - 320"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"R (Wyatt) v Fareham Borough Council: Worst case scenario and habitats protection\",\"authors\":\"E. Lees\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14614529221141669\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Court of Appeal has once again addressed the rules under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 1 / Habitats Directive 2 in R (Wyatt) v Fareham Borough Council . 3 Whilst the Court expli-citly states that there are no new questions of law in this case, 4 the judgment of Lindblom LJ is nevertheless signi fi cant in the way that it treats disputes concerning expert guidance and evidence in relation to conservation. The legal principles being applied were indeed settled, but the clarity of their expression in this judgment is very helpful. The case provides a useful, up-to-date summary of the tests which have been developed by the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) 5 and the domestic courts in relation to the lawfulness of appropriate assessments under regulation 63 Habitats Regulations/ article 6 Habitats Directive. It also explores the relationships between Court, administrative authority, expert administrative agencies, and other scienti fi c advisors. I have explored the complex power relationships that have emerged in the operation of the Habitats Directive in respect of these actors elsewhere. 6 This judgment goes a long way to presenting a clear and accurate snapshot of how those relationships (should) work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52213,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Law Review\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"314 - 320\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529221141669\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529221141669","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

上诉法院在R (Wyatt)诉Fareham自治市议会的案件中再次处理了《2017年栖息地和物种保护条例》1 /栖息地指令2的规定。虽然最高法院明确声明本案中不存在新的法律问题,但林德布洛姆法官的判决在处理与保护相关的专家指导和证据争议的方式上仍然具有重要意义。所适用的法律原则确实已得到解决,但这项判决对这些原则的明确表达很有帮助。该案例提供了欧洲联盟法院(CJEU) 5和国内法院根据《生境条例》第63条/《生境指令》第6条制定的有关适当评估合法性的测试的有用的最新摘要。它还探讨了法院、行政当局、专家行政机构和其他科学顾问之间的关系。我探索了在栖息地指令的运作中出现的复杂的权力关系,这些关系涉及到其他地方的这些行动者。这种判断有助于清晰而准确地勾勒出这些关系(应该)如何运作。
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
R (Wyatt) v Fareham Borough Council: Worst case scenario and habitats protection
The Court of Appeal has once again addressed the rules under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 1 / Habitats Directive 2 in R (Wyatt) v Fareham Borough Council . 3 Whilst the Court expli-citly states that there are no new questions of law in this case, 4 the judgment of Lindblom LJ is nevertheless signi fi cant in the way that it treats disputes concerning expert guidance and evidence in relation to conservation. The legal principles being applied were indeed settled, but the clarity of their expression in this judgment is very helpful. The case provides a useful, up-to-date summary of the tests which have been developed by the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) 5 and the domestic courts in relation to the lawfulness of appropriate assessments under regulation 63 Habitats Regulations/ article 6 Habitats Directive. It also explores the relationships between Court, administrative authority, expert administrative agencies, and other scienti fi c advisors. I have explored the complex power relationships that have emerged in the operation of the Habitats Directive in respect of these actors elsewhere. 6 This judgment goes a long way to presenting a clear and accurate snapshot of how those relationships (should) work.
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
Environmental Law Review
Environmental Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Book Review: The North Sea System for Petroleum Production, State Intervention on the British and Norwegian Continental Shelves by Brent F Nelsen and Tina Soliman Hunter Ecological constitutionalism within the Canadian context: Charter-ing international standards of the human right to a healthy environment From farm to fork? Brexit and the International Plant Protection Convention Transfer of ESTs in international law: A climate justice approach Biodiversity management challenges: A policy brief
×
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