Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:35:55.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Article 47 of the Charter precludes national procedural rules that allow decisions to be taken in environmental matters pending litigation on participation in that decision-making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2017

Laurens ANKERSMIT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Commentaries
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 8 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue on the Implementation in Europe of the WHO Recommendations on Food Marketing to Children , June 2017 , pp. 448 - 452
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

ClientEarth, e-mail: lankersmit@clientearth.org.

References

1 Case C-243/15 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín (Brown Bears II) EU:C:2016:838.

2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, 7–50.

3 Case C‑240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie (Brown Bears I) EU:C:2011:125.

4 Case C-243/15 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín (Brown Bears II) EU:C:2016:838, paras. 40–53.

5 See, for instance, Case C‑240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie (Brown Bears I) EU:C:2011:125, paras. 47–48.

6 Supra note 1, para. 51.

7 ibid para. 52.

8 ibid para. 50.

9 ibid para. 45.

10 ibid paras. 46–49.

11 ibid para. 61.

12 ibid para. 65.

13 ibid para. 68.

14 Case C-243/15 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín (Brown Bears II) EU:C:2016:491, Opinion of AG Kokott, paras. 56–84.

15 In that sense, it is to be noted that the ECJ has on a number of occasions denied direct effect of several provisions of the Aarhus Convention, including a decision on Article 9(2)–(4) that was rendered after the delivery of the Opinion. See Joined Cases C‑401/12 P to C‑403/12 P Vereniging Milieudefensie EU:C:2015:4, para. 55; Case C-543/14 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and others EU:C:2016:605, para. 50.

16 Case C-243/15 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín (Brown Bears II) EU:C:2016:491, Opinion of AG Kokott, para. 99.

17 ibid para. 98.

18 Early case law since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty does not suggest a change in approach. In the Seal products case, the ECJ held that Art. 47 CFR ‘is not intended to change the system of judicial review laid down by the Treaties, and particularly the rules relating to the admissibility of direct actions brought before the Courts of the European Union’. See Case C-583/11P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others EU:C:2013:625, para. 97.