No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
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
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.
- Type
- Case Commentaries
- Information
- Copyright
- © Cambridge University Press
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.