Jerzy JendrośkaAccess 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

Jerzy Jendrośka 1

Content

• Aarhus Convention – origins and structure• Compliance mechanism• Access to justice in Aarhus Convention • Access to justice – compliance issues

Jerzy Jendrośka 2

Jerzy Jendrośka 3

Aarhus Convention - 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

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)

4 Jerzy Jendrośka

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

5 Jerzy Jendrośka

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

6 Jerzy Jendrośka

Jendrośka Jerzmański Bar i Wspólnicy; www.jjb.com.pl 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)

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

8 Jerzy Jendrośka

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

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

14 Jerzy Jendrośka

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 in Parties– 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 Conseil d’Etat in France)

15 Jerzy Jendrośka

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

16 Jerzy Jendrośka

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)

17 Jerzy Jendrośka

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)

Case-load of Compliance Committee

• 93 communications from public; 1 submission• 63 communications determined admissible• • 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 21

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 22

Types of non-compliance

• General failure by a Party to take the necessary legislative, regulatory and other measures timplement the Convention

• Failure of legislation, regulations, other measures or jurisprudence to meet specific Convention requirements

• Specific events, acts, omissions or situations demonstrating a failure by public authorities or courts to comply with (or enforce )the Convention

Jerzy Jendrośka 23

Legal effect• Findings and recommendations of CC– Findings

• compliance or 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 24

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 25

Jendrośka Jerzmański Bar & Partners; www.jjb.com.pl 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

Jerzy Jendrośka 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)

Jendrośka Jerzmański Bar & Partners; www.jjb.com.pl 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

Jerzy Jendrośka 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 acts or omissions– by private persons or public authorities– which contravene provisions of national law

relating to the environment • Only enforcement action modelled on citizens

suit in USA or catch-all provision• Review– administrative or – judicial

Jerzy Jendrośka 40

Implementation - access to justice• Often problem with jurisprudence and not legislation• Overview of cases

– Art.9.1 – relatively rear (mostly timeliness)– Art 9.2 -

• Lack of access to justice in individual cases• Lack of effective access to justice

– Art.9.3 - general legislative failures– Art. 9.2 and 3 - criteria for standing for NGOs and some

indiviidual members of the public (tenants)– Art.9.4 -

• Costs• Effective remedies • Timeliness

Art. 9.2 – key issues

• Problems in legislations based on „protection of rights” with addressing – procedural legality (ACC/31/ Germany)– substantive legality (ACC/50/Czech Republic)– general environmental issues (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 41

Art.9.3 – landmark cases

• ACCC/11 Belgium: No non-compliance• ACCC/18 Denmark: No non-compliance

• Conditional findings• Attention to the “general picture” on access to

justice• Both cases frequently cited in subsequent

findings

Jerzy Jendrośka 42

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 43

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 44

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 45

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 46

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 47

Access to Justice – harmonization of laws in EU Member States

• 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 Environmental Liability– draft Directive on Access to Justice– Verdict in Case C-240/09 Lesochranarske:

Jerzy Jendrośka 48

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 49

Access to Justice – standing at EU level

• ECJ interpretation of „directly and individually concerned” scrutinised by ACC (ACCC/32/ EC)– „if the jurisprudence of the EU Courts…were to continue, unless

fully compensated for by adequate administrative review procedures, the Party concerned would fail to comply with article 9, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Convention”

– „a new direction of the jurisprudence of 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 in article 9 of the Convention nor compensate for the strict jurisprudence of the EU Courts”

Jerzy Jendrośka 50