jerzy jendro ka access to justice in environmental matters under the aarhus convention n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Jerzy Jendrośka Access to Justice in Environmental Matters under the Aarhus Convention PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Jerzy Jendrośka Access to Justice in Environmental Matters under the Aarhus Convention

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 50

Jerzy Jendrośka Access to Justice in Environmental Matters under the Aarhus Convention - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 160 Views
  • Uploaded on

Jerzy Jendrośka Access to Justice in Environmental Matters under the Aarhus Convention. Seminar on Access to Courts in Environmental Law Matters European Judicial Training Network Lisbon 8-9 October 2013. Content. Aarhus Convention – origins and structure Compliance mechanism

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Jerzy Jendrośka Access to Justice in Environmental Matters under the Aarhus Convention


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Jerzy JendrośkaAccess to Justice in Environmental Matters under the Aarhus Convention Seminar on Access to Courts in Environmental Law Matters EuropeanJudicial Training Network Lisbon 8-9 October 2013 Jerzy Jendrośka

    2. Content • Aarhus Convention – origins and structure • Compliance mechanism • Access to justice in Aarhus Convention • Access to justice – compliance issues Jerzy Jendrośka

    3. AarhusConvention - origins • Conceptual roots • trend in international and Community law • Rio Declaration – soft law • Fragmented approaches in binding agreements - need for comprehensive binding rules • Political context • Framework • UN Economic Commission for Europe • Environment for Europe Process Jerzy Jendrośka

    4. UNECE Aarhus Convention • Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters • 1998 - adopted and signed in Aarhus (Denmark) • 2001 - entry into force • 2003 - PRTR Protocol adopted and signed in Kiev • 2005 - GMO Amendment adopted and signed in Almaty (Kazakhstan) Jerzy Jendrośka

    5. Role of the Aarhus Convention • First binding international instrument to address citizen’s environmental rights • Benchmark and 'world' standard • Aarhus Convention as a benchmark • Provides links between environmental protection and: • human rights • democratization • government accountability • Aarhus Convention in EU • part of the acquis • Member States implement Aarhus via EU law Jerzy Jendrośka

    6. Right to environment • Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration – right to environment acknowledged in ‘soft law’ • Principle 10 Rio Declaration silent on right to environment • Right to environment in Aarhus: • binding legal instrument • non-binding language Jerzy Jendrośka

    7. Structure of the Convention • Objective – right to environment (art.1) • Definitions (art.2) • General provisions (art.3) • Operative provisions – 3 pillars (art.4-9) • Meeting of the Parties (art.10) • Compliance mechanism (art.15) Jendrośka Jerzmański Bar i Wspólnicy; www.jjb.com.pl

    8. 3 pillars • Access to information • passive disclosure – Art. 4 • active disclosure – Art. 5 • Public participation • decisions whether to permit specific activities „which may have a significant effect on the environment” - art 6 • GMO decisions – Art. 6 bis • plans/programs „relating to environment”– Art. 7 • policies „relating to environment” – Art. 7 • normative acts/legally binding rules „that may have a significant effect on the environment” – Art. 8 • Access to justice • reddress in case of abusing right to information - art.9.1 • reddress in case of abusing right to participate - art.9.2 • separate right to file a public interest law suit - art.9.3 Jerzy Jendrośka

    9. Scope of the Convention • Main substantive elements • Access to justice as a third pillar • Public participation in strategic decisions • Application to EU institutions • Contentious issues: • PRTR • Public participation in GMO decisions Jerzy Jendrośka

    10. Legislative techniques • „Shall” vs „should” • „Flexibility’ clauses • Enabling provisions • Role of preamble Jerzy Jendrośka

    11. „Flexibility” clauses • shall endeavour • should strive • to the extent appropriate • where appropriate • within the framework of national legislation Jerzy Jendrośka

    12. Adoption and entry into force • Adopted and signed in Aarhus in 1998 • Entry into force in 2001 Jerzy Jendrośka

    13. Developments • MOP I Lucca 2001 • compliance mechanism adopted • GMO Guidelines • MOP extra –Kiev 2003 • PRTR Protocol • MOP II Almaty 2003 • GMO amendment • PPFiF Guidelines • decisions concerning compliance • MOP III Riga 2008 • MOP IV Chisinau 2011 Jerzy Jendrośka

    14. Precedential features • Rights–based approach • Procedural rights as guarantees for a right to environment • Promotion of public participation in international processes • Open to non UNECE countries Jerzy Jendrośka

    15. Direct effect of Aarhus Convention • Direct effect at EU level • Case C-240/09 Lesochranarske: art.9.3 has no direct effect but standard test of direct effect applicable • Direct effect inParties • no direct effect because of article 3.1 („Each Party shall take the necesary legislative, regulatory and other measures..”) – verdicts in Czech Republic and Poland • each provision separately judged (ie. paragraphs 1,2,3 and 7 of Art.6 produce direct effect according to Conseild’Etat in France) Jerzy Jendrośka

    16. Aarhus Convention – status and role in Europe • Aarhus Convention as a benchmark • Aarhus Convention in EU • part of the acquis • Member States implement Aarhus via EU law • European Commission and ECJ as enforcers Jerzy Jendrośka

    17. Aarhus Compliance mechanism • Compliance Committee • nine independent members • elected to serve in personal capacity • regional balance • Compliance procedure - triggers • Submission by Party about another Party • Submission by Party about itself • Referrals by secretariat • Communications by the public (60 hitherto) Jerzy Jendrośka

    18. Monitoring compliance mechanism • Implementation reports • Compliance Committee • Compliance procedure Jerzy Jendrośka

    19. Compliance Committee • Nine independent members (eight before MoP-3 in 2008) • Elected to serve in personal capacity • Regional balance • Nomination by MOP Jerzy Jendrośka

    20. Compliance procedure • Triggers • Submission by Party about another Party (1 hitherto) • Submission by Party about itself • Referrals by secretariat • Communications by the public (almost 100 hitherto) Jerzy Jendrośka

    21. Case-load of ComplianceCommittee • 93 communications from public; 1 submission • 63 communicationsdeterminedadmissible • • 42 sets of findings • – 25 Non‐compliance • – 16 No non‐compliance (including C/32 (EU) Part I) • – 1 No conclusion • • 2 cases closed; issues “resolved” domestically • • 2+3 cases with summary proceedings procedure • • 1 case of joint findings • • ca 20 pending cases – (Summer 2013) Jerzy Jendrośka

    22. Key issues • Template for complaint • Criteria for admissibility • Exhaustion of domestic remedies • Procedure • Hearing (possibility to be represented) • Draft findings available for comments • All documents publicly available • Follow-up Jerzy Jendrośka

    23. Types of non-compliance • General failure by a Party to take the necessarylegislative, regulatory and other measures timplementthe Convention • Failure of legislation, regulations, other measures orjurisprudence to meet specific Conventionrequirements • Specificevents, acts, omissionsorsituationsdemonstrating a failure by public authorities or courtsto comply with (or enforce )the Convention Jerzy Jendrośka

    24. Legal effect • Findings and recommendations of CC • Findings • complianceor non-compliance • Recommendations • steps to be taken Party concerned • steps to be taken by MOP • Adoption by MOP • Measures • Declaration of non-compliance • Caution • Suspension of rights Jerzy Jendrośka

    25. Implications • In relation to particular case • no retro-active effect • strategy to rectify situation to be adopted, submitted to CC, and implemented • As a reference point for • implementing the Convention in legislation • interpreting the Convention in particular cases Jerzy Jendrośka

    26. Acces to Justice • Art.9.1-3: redress in 3 situations • Art.9.4: requirements concerning • remedies • procedures • Art.9.5: practicalities • information • assistance Jendrośka Jerzmański Bar & Partners; www.jjb.com.pl

    27. Art.9.1,2 and 3: redress • Art.9.1: redress in case of abusing right to information (relation to Art.4) • Art.9.2: redress in case of abusing right to participate (relation to Art.6 and possibly other provisions) • Art.9.3: separate right to file a public interest law suit (relation to Art.1) Jendrośka Jerzmański Bar & Partners; www.jjb.com.pl

    28. Art.9.4 - remedies • Adequate • Effective • Include injunctive relief Jendrośka Jerzmański Bar & Partners; www.jjb.com.pl

    29. Art.9.4: review procedures • Fair and equitable • Timely • Not prohibitively expensive Jendrośka Jerzmański Bar & Partners; www.jjb.com.pl

    30. Information and assistance – Art.9.5 • Information - relation to • Art.3.5 • Art.4.7 • Art.5.7b) • Assistance - relation to Art.3.2 Jendrośka Jerzmański Bar & Partners; www.jjb.com.pl

    31. Redress - access to information (Art.9.1) • Reasons: • Request ignored • Request wrongfully refused • Request inadequately answered • Request otherwise not dealt in accrdance with Article 4 of the Convention Jerzy Jendrośka

    32. Review procedures under art.9.1 • Administrative review • Expeditious • Free of charge or inexpensive • Administrative appeal or ombudsman • Court reviev • Final decision • Binding • Reasons stated in writing Jerzy Jendrośka

    33. Additional measures – best practice • Damage caused by unlawful treatment of request for information can be claimed at court (Tajikistan) • Unlawful refusal (in practice – lack of reaction) of information may be sanctioned by criminal sanctions (Poland) Jerzy Jendrośka

    34. Art.9.2 - scope • Reasons • Substantive or procedural legality • Decision, act or omission subject to Article 6 • Art..6.1.a) – activities in Annex I • Art.6.1 b) - • Other relevant provisions where so provided for under national law • Court review and (preliminary) administrative review Jendrośka Jerzmański Bar & Partners; www.jjb.com.pl

    35. Art.9.2 - standing • Members of the public concerned (art.2.5) • affected or likely to be affected • having an interest in environmental decision-making • role of NGOs • Criteria for standing in art.9.2 • Sufficient interest • Impairment of a right • criteria in national law consistent with the objective of giving wide access to justice Jendrośka Jerzmański Bar & Partners; www.jjb.com.pl

    36. Right under art.9.3 • Role • in art.9 • in the Convention • Who – standing • What - scope Jerzy Jendrośka

    37. Art.9.3 - role • In addition and without prejudice to the review procedures under 9.1 and 9.2 • Relation to the right (art.1) • of every person • of present and future generations • in an environment adequate to health and well-being Jerzy Jendrośka

    38. Art.9.3 - standing • Actio popularis ? • Members of the public • meeting the criteria (if any) • laid down in national law • Definition of the public (art.2.4) • natural or legal persons • including associations, organizations and groups Jerzy Jendrośka

    39. Art 9.3 – scope • To challenge actsoromissions • by privatepersonsor public authorities • whichcontraveneprovisions of national law relating to the environment • Onlyenforcementactionmodelled on citizens suit in USA orcatch-allprovision • Review • administrativeor • judicial Jerzy Jendrośka

    40. Implementation - access to justice • Often problem with jurisprudence and not legislation • Overview of cases • Art.9.1 – relativelyrear (mostlytimeliness) • Art 9.2 - • Lack of access to justice in individualcases • Lack of effectiveaccess to justice • Art.9.3 - generallegislativefailures • Art. 9.2 and 3 - criteria for standing for NGOs and someindiviidualmembers of the public (tenants) • Art.9.4 - • Costs • Effectiveremedies • Timeliness Jerzy Jendrośka

    41. Art. 9.2 – key issues • Problems in legislationsbased on „protection of rights” with addressing • procedurallegality (ACC/31/ Germany) • substantivelegality (ACC/50/Czech Republic) • generalenvironmentalissues (ACC/48/ Austria) • Screening decisions and Art. 9 (ACC/50/Czech Republic and (ACC/48/ Austria) • „Sufficient” vs „substantial’ or „legal” interest • Rights of tenants • Standing vs scope of review Jerzy Jendrośka

    42. Art.9.3 – landmarkcases • ACCC/11 Belgium: No non-compliance • ACCC/18 Denmark: No non-compliance • Conditionalfindings • Attention to the “general picture” on access to justice • Both cases frequently cited in subsequent findings Jerzy Jendrośka

    43. Art.9.3 - key issues • No “actio popularis” required • National criteria, “if any”, must not effectively bar all or almost all NGOs or other members of the public from A2J • Interpretation towards „catch-all” provision • Administrative, civil and penal procedures • Standing of NGOs in sectoral laws Jerzy Jendrośka

    44. EU as „national law” • „in the context of article 9, paragraph 3, also applicable European Community law relating to the environment should be considered to be part of the domestic, national law of a member state” ACCC/C/2006/18 Denmark Jerzy Jendrośka

    45. Actio popularis? • „the Parties are not obliged to establish a system of popular action (“actio popularis”) in their national laws with the effect that anyone can challenge any decision, act or omission relating to the environment” (ACCC/C/2006/18 Denmark) Jerzy Jendrośka

    46. Criteria • „ On other the hand, the Parties may not take the clause “where they meet the criteria, if any, laid down in its national law” as an excuse for introducing or maintaining so strict criteria that they effectively bar all or almost all environmental organizations or other members of the public from challenging act or omissions that contravene national law relating to the environment • (ACCC/C/2006/18 Denmark) Jerzy Jendrośka

    47. Art.9.4 and 9(5) – landmark cases • ACCC/23/27/33 (UK): Non-compliance • ACCC/36 (Spain): Non-compliance • Unfair allocation of costs • Quantum of costs: “despite the various measures available to address prohibitive costs, taken together they do not ensure that the costs remain at a level which meets the requirements under the Convention ” • Consider cost system as a whole Jerzy Jendrośka

    48. Access to Justice – harmonization of laws in EU MemberStates • Art.9.1 – Access to Information Directive • Art.9.2 • EIA Directive (art.6.1 a) • IED (IPPC) Directive ((art.6.1 a) • Seveso III Directive ((art.6.1 a or b?) • Art.9.3 • Directive 2004/35 on EnvironmentalLiability • draft Directive on Access to Justice • Verdict in Case C-240/09 Lesochranarske: Jerzy Jendrośka

    49. Access to Justice in relation to EU institutions • Provisions in the Treaties and restrictive interpretation by ECJ • Special procedure in the Aarhus Regulation 1367/2006 • Case ACCC/32 EC Jerzy Jendrośka

    50. Access to Justice – standing at EU level • ECJ interpretation of „directly and individuallyconcerned” scrutinised by ACC (ACCC/32/ EC) • „if the jurisprudence of the EU Courts…were tocontinue, unless fully compensated for by adequate administrative review procedures, theParty concerned would fail to comply with article 9, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Convention” • „a new direction of the jurisprudenceof the EU Courts should be established in order to ensure compliance with the Convention” • Preliminary ruling„neither in itself meet the requirements of access to justice inarticle 9 of the Convention nor compensate for the strict jurisprudence of the EU Courts” Jerzy Jendrośka