BOOK
Cite BOOK
Style
Lohse, E., Poto, M. (Eds.) (2015). Participatory Rights in the Environmental Decision-Making Process and the Implementation of the Aarhus Convention: a Comparative Perspective. Duncker & Humblot. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-54613-8
Lohse, Eva Julia and Poto, Margherita. Participatory Rights in the Environmental Decision-Making Process and the Implementation of the Aarhus Convention: a Comparative Perspective. Duncker & Humblot, 2015. Book. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-54613-8
Lohse, E, Poto, M (eds.) (2015): Participatory Rights in the Environmental Decision-Making Process and the Implementation of the Aarhus Convention: a Comparative Perspective, Duncker & Humblot, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-54613-8
Format
Participatory Rights in the Environmental Decision-Making Process and the Implementation of the Aarhus Convention: a Comparative Perspective
Editors: Lohse, Eva Julia | Poto, Margherita
Schriften zum Internationalen Recht, Vol. 205
(2015)
Additional Information
Book Details
Pricing
About The Author
Eva Lohse hat Jura in Erlangen und Lausanne studiert und 2005 einen LLM in Europarecht und Rechtsvergleichung an der University of Kent, Canterbury (UK), gemacht. Nach der Promotion hat sie sich 2015 an der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg habilitiert. Ihre Forschungsschwerpunkte liegen im internationalen Umweltrecht, der Rechtsvergleichung und dem Schutz von Grund- und Menschenrechten in Mehrebenensystemen. Sie ist derzeit wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin am Hans-Liermann-Institut an der FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg und am Institut für Rechtstheorie der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Margherita Poto ist Tenured-Assistant Professor in Verwaltungsrecht an der Universität Turin (Italien). In den letzten 14 Jahren lagen ihre Forschungsschwerpunkte im Verwaltungsrecht aus italienischer sowie aus vergleichender Perspektive. Daneben hat sie sich mit Finanzaufsicht, Umweltrecht und dem zunehmenden globalen Bewusstsein für Umweltschutz, Lebensmittelrecht und Nachhaltigkeit beschäftigt. Dahinter steckt die Idee, Bezüge zwischen Rechtskulturen und -traditionen zu finden und »best practices« aus aller Welt zu vergleichen.Abstract
Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung in Umweltangelegenheiten beruht auf der Idee, dass Bürger und Behörden eine ökologische Verantwortung haben, auf die Erde zu achten. Rechtlich wird diese Idee durch Beteiligungsrechte in Verwaltungs- und Gerichtsverfahren einerseits und in rechtlichen Pflichten für die Behörden andererseits zum Ausdruck gebracht. Trotz gemeinsamer internationaler (Aarhus Convention) und supranationaler (EG-/EU-Richtlinien) Verpflichtungen unterscheiden sich diese Rechte und Pflichten in den europäischen Rechtsordnungen aufgrund von unterschiedlichen Rechtsvorschriften sowie (Rechts-)Traditionen. Ziel ist es, einen rechtsvergleichenden Überblick über die Beteiligungsrechte für Bürger und die Pflichten der Behörden in Deutschland und Italien als Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union zu geben. Dies trägt zur besseren Umsetzung der völkerrechtlichen Verpflichtungen ebenso wie zur Herausbildung eines sich gerade entwickelnden gemeinsamen europäischen Rechts zur Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung in Umweltangelegenheiten bei.The book provides a comparative overview of the implementation of participatory rights in environmental decision making. The core idea was to explore the legal cultures of various EU member states, where the principles of the Aarhus Convention have been implemented in national law with a focus on German and Italian environmental law. Our project aims to contribute to the knowledge of whether European Union law is on the right way to establish such an approach.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inhaltsverzeichnis | 7 | ||
| Eva Julia Lohse, Giulia Parola and Margherita Poto: Introductory Remarks on the Idea and the Purpose of a German-Italian Dialogue on Participation in Environmental Decision-Making | 9 | ||
| I. Scientific Background of the Project | 9 | ||
| II. Success and Outcome of the Project | 11 | ||
| Part I: Perspectives on Participation – Rationales, Protected Interests, Democracy | 13 | ||
| Giulia Parola: Ecological Interest as a Leading Rationale for Participation: Ecological Duties of the Citizens and of the Authorities | 15 | ||
| Abstract | 15 | ||
| I. Introduction | 15 | ||
| II. Environmental Participation to an Ecological Responsibility | 17 | ||
| III. Ecological Duties: Two Fundamental Duties | 19 | ||
| 1. Duty to Protect the Environment for the Sake of the Present and Future Generations | 21 | ||
| 2. Duty to Protect the Environment for the Sake of the Environment | 22 | ||
| IV. The Implementation of the Ecological Duties in the Aarhus Convention and in the Members States’ Legal Systems | 22 | ||
| 1. Implementation Through Codification | 23 | ||
| a) Implementation in the AC | 23 | ||
| b) Implementation in Member States’ Legislation | 25 | ||
| 2. Implementation Through Representation of Future Generations and of Nature | 26 | ||
| a) Art. 9 (3) AC, the Fourth Pillar | 27 | ||
| b) Implementation in Member States’ Legislation | 28 | ||
| V. Conclusion | 29 | ||
| References | 29 | ||
| Cristina Fraenkel-Haeberle: Participatory Democracy and the Global Approach in Environmental Legislation | 33 | ||
| Abstract | 33 | ||
| I. Introductory Remarks | 33 | ||
| II. Participatory, Deliberative and Associative Democracy | 34 | ||
| III. The Temporal and Transversal Dimension in Environmental Law – Sustainability in Law | 36 | ||
| IV. The Democratisation of Environmental Law | 38 | ||
| V. An Example of the Horizontal Circulation of Models | 40 | ||
| VI. Concluding Remarks | 42 | ||
| References | 43 | ||
| Claudia Sartoretti: The Aarhus Convention Between Protection of Human Rights and Protection of the Environment | 45 | ||
| Abstract | 45 | ||
| I. Introduction | 45 | ||
| II. Historical Development | 46 | ||
| III. Perspectives on the Relationship Between Human Rights and Environmental Protection | 47 | ||
| IV. Substantive and Procedural Environmental Rights | 49 | ||
| V. The Convention of Aarhus: a Particular ˋConvergence’ Between Environmental Protection and Defence of Human Rights | 50 | ||
| VI. Conclusions | 53 | ||
| References | 55 | ||
| Paolo Turrini: Participatory Rights and the Notion of Interest in Environmental Decision-making: a Theoretical Sketch and Some International Legal Considerations | 59 | ||
| Abstract | 59 | ||
| I. Introduction | 59 | ||
| II. Preliminary Remarks on the Concept of Participation | 60 | ||
| III. Interest-based Attribution of Participatory Rights | 62 | ||
| 1. The Notion of Interest-based Participation | 62 | ||
| 2. The Practical Use of the Notion | 63 | ||
| IV. Factors Affecting the Class of Interested Parties | 64 | ||
| 1. What is Decision-making? | 65 | ||
| 2. What is the Environment? | 66 | ||
| 3. What is Environmental Decision-making? | 66 | ||
| 4. Other Procedural Limits | 66 | ||
| 5. The Notion of Interest | 68 | ||
| V. Interests, Participation and International Law | 68 | ||
| VI. Conclusions | 70 | ||
| References | 71 | ||
| Federica Cittadino: Public Interest to Environmental Protection and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: Procedural Rights to Participation and Substantive Guarantees | 75 | ||
| Abstract | 75 | ||
| I. Introduction | 75 | ||
| II. Indigenous Participation in the Decisions of Human Rights Bodies: Four Strands of Rights | 78 | ||
| 1. ˋLight Participation’: Participation Through Individual Political Rights | 79 | ||
| 2. The Assessment of Participation as a Formal Requirement | 80 | ||
| 3. Indigenous Participation as a Requirement for Effective Participation | 82 | ||
| 4. Consent of Indigenous Peoples as a Requirement of Effective Participation | 84 | ||
| III. Conclusion | 86 | ||
| 1. Indigenous Peoples and Participation | 86 | ||
| 2. Lessons to be Drawn: the Conceptualisation of Participation | 87 | ||
| References | 89 | ||
| Part II: Participation in Administrative Decision-making: Prerequisites and Principles in National and Supranational Law | 91 | ||
| Margherita Poto: Strengths and Weaknesses of Environmental Participation Under the Aarhus Convention: What Lies Beyond Rhetorical Proceduralisation? | 93 | ||
| Abstract | 93 | ||
| I. Introductory Remarks | 93 | ||
| II. The AC Participatory Approach and its Shifts in Mentality: Political, Diplomatic and Legal | 94 | ||
| 1. The Political Side | 94 | ||
| 2. The Shift in Diplomacy | 94 | ||
| 3. A New Legal Mind-set | 95 | ||
| III. The Aarhus Convention Compliance: Internal Mechanisms and National Outputs | 97 | ||
| 1. The Compliance Committee: a New Participatory Approach to Monitor Compliance | 97 | ||
| 2. The European Union: a Good Level of Compliance due to Legal Tradition | 99 | ||
| 3. Actions for Better Compliance | 100 | ||
| IV. Reasons Behind the Delayed or Scarce Compliance | 101 | ||
| V. A Successful Model of Participation Under the AC Aegis: the Municipality of Capannori | 102 | ||
| VI. Conclusion and Way Forward | 103 | ||
| References | 103 | ||
| Viviana Molaschi: The Implementation of the Aarhus Convention in Italy: a Strong ˋVision’ and a Weak ˋVoice’ | 105 | ||
| Abstract | 105 | ||
| I. Preliminary Remarks | 105 | ||
| II. The Implementation System of the Aarhus Convention: a Brief Outline | 107 | ||
| III. Access to Environmental Information in Italy | 108 | ||
| IV. Examples of Implementation of the Second Pillar of the AC in the Italian Environmental Code and in Other Legislation Relevant to the Environment | 112 | ||
| V. Closing Observations | 116 | ||
| References | 117 | ||
| Julian Zwicker / Franziska Sperfeld: Participation of Environmental Associations in the Context of Nature Conservation Law in Germany | 121 | ||
| Abstract | 121 | ||
| I. Introduction | 122 | ||
| II. Principals and Basic Structures of Mandatory Participation in Germany | 123 | ||
| 1. Criteria and State of Recognition | 123 | ||
| 2. Excursus: Compliance of sec. 3 (1) UmwRG with the AC Objectives | 124 | ||
| 3. Participatory Rights | 125 | ||
| 4. Basic Organisational and Co-operational Structures of German Environmental Associations | 128 | ||
| III. Contents and Conclusions of the Status-workshop | 129 | ||
| 1. Procedures of Participatory Work | 130 | ||
| a) Administrative Procedure | 130 | ||
| b) Communication Methods | 131 | ||
| 2. Challenges Within Working Procedures | 131 | ||
| IV. Perspective | 132 | ||
| References | 134 | ||
| Nicola Below: Participation Under REACH – Stakeholder Interests and Implementation of EU Secondary Law | 135 | ||
| Abstract | 135 | ||
| I. Introduction | 135 | ||
| II. Definition of Participation | 137 | ||
| III. Participation in European Union Chemical Regulation | 139 | ||
| 1. Actors Involved: Stakeholders and Interested Parties | 139 | ||
| 2. Functions of Stakeholder Involvement | 140 | ||
| 3. Cooperation with the ECHA | 140 | ||
| 4. Consultation in Decision-making Processes | 141 | ||
| a) Registration | 142 | ||
| b) Dossier and Substance Evaluation | 142 | ||
| c) Management of Problematic Substances | 143 | ||
| aa) Initial Decision Basis | 144 | ||
| bb) Authorisation Procedure | 144 | ||
| cc) Restriction Procedure | 145 | ||
| IV. NGOs’ Perception of Participation Under REACH | 147 | ||
| 1. Practices and Struggles of NGOs in General | 148 | ||
| 2. Authorisation and Restriction Procedures Behind the Background of Art. 8 AC | 150 | ||
| V. Conclusion | 153 | ||
| References | 154 | ||
| Part III: Participation Through Access to Justice – Conditions and Concepts of Judiciary Participation | 157 | ||
| Eva Julia Lohse: Access to Justice – the Main Challenge for Implementing the Aarhus Convention | 159 | ||
| I. Introduction | 159 | ||
| II. Points of Interest in the Context of Implementation | 161 | ||
| 1. Public and Public Concerned | 161 | ||
| 2. The Foundation of Access to the Courts and Standing – Individual or Collective, Material or Procedural | 162 | ||
| 3. Implementing Restrictions of Access to Justice in National Law | 165 | ||
| a) The Notion of ˋEnvironment’ and ˋEnvironmental Law’ | 165 | ||
| b) Defining Non-governmental Organisations: Promoting the Protection of the Environment | 166 | ||
| c) Standard of Review | 166 | ||
| d) Foreclosure and Exemption of Causes of Action | 167 | ||
| e) Inequality Between Individuals and NGOs as well as Between Claims in Environmental Matters and Those Outside Environmental Law | 167 | ||
| III. Modes of Implementation | 168 | ||
| IV. Risk of Divergence due to Review by Differing International Bodies | 169 | ||
| V. The Future of Access to Justice (in Environmental Matters) | 170 | ||
| References | 171 | ||
| Angela Schwerdtfeger: Implementation and the Separation of Powers | 173 | ||
| Abstract | 173 | ||
| I. Introduction | 174 | ||
| II. Background | 174 | ||
| 1. Art. 9 AC | 174 | ||
| 2. Relevant Case Law | 175 | ||
| III. First Step: CJEU Versus Parties to the Convention and Pro National Courts | 176 | ||
| IV. Second Step: German FAC Versus Legislature | 177 | ||
| 1. Legal Protection in German Administrative Law | 177 | ||
| a) Protective Norm Doctrine | 177 | ||
| b) Environmental Organisations | 177 | ||
| c) Excursus: CJEU, Case C-115/09 – Trianel | 178 | ||
| 2. The Recent Judgement of the German FAC | 179 | ||
| a) Legal Construction | 179 | ||
| b) Criticism | 181 | ||
| aa) Disruption of the German Concept of Standing | 181 | ||
| bb) Material versus Procedural Approach | 181 | ||
| cc) Limits of Interpretation | 182 | ||
| V. Third Step: the Aarhus Compliance Committee | 184 | ||
| 1. The German Case | 184 | ||
| 2. The ˋGeneral Picture’ Approach | 184 | ||
| VI. Conclusion | 185 | ||
| 1. Underlying Reasons | 185 | ||
| 2. The Protagonists' Roles | 186 | ||
| 3. Enforcement of the Convention | 186 | ||
| References | 187 | ||
| Elena Fasoli: The German Criteria for Access to Justice Under the Scrutiny of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee and of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Is There Room for Similar Proceedings Against Italy? | 189 | ||
| Abstract | 189 | ||
| I. Introduction | 189 | ||
| II. The German Criteria Before the ACCC and the CJEU: a Comparison with the Italian Legal System | 190 | ||
| 1. The Requirement that the Decision has to Affect the Objectives of Environmental Protection as Defined in the Statute of the Association | 192 | ||
| 2. The Requirement that Review has to be Granted for the Substantive and Procedural Legality of the Decision | 193 | ||
| 3. The Requirement that the Challenged Decision Violates Provisions Serving the Environment | 194 | ||
| 4. The Requirement that the Challenged Decision Violates Legal Provisions that Could Be of Importance for the Decision | 197 | ||
| III. The (Remaining) Criteria in Italian Law for Access to Justice under the (Possible) Scrutiny of the CJEU and/or the ACCC? | 198 | ||
| IV. Concluding Remarks | 200 | ||
| References | 201 | ||
| Bilun Müller: The Effect of the Aarhus Convention’s Right to Access to the Courts in Germany | 203 | ||
| Abstract | 203 | ||
| I. Introduction | 203 | ||
| II. The AC’s Right to Access the Courts Concerning Public Participation | 204 | ||
| III. The German History of Public Participation, the Opportunities for Judicial Review in this Context, the Importance of Procedural Flaws, and the European Influence | 205 | ||
| 1. The History of Public Participation | 205 | ||
| 2. The History of the Right to Access the Courts | 207 | ||
| a) The German System at the Outset | 207 | ||
| b) The Influence of European and International Law | 208 | ||
| 3. The History of the Relevance of Non-conformance with Procedural Requirements | 209 | ||
| IV. Evaluation of the Current Situation | 211 | ||
| 1. Individuals vs. NGOs | 211 | ||
| 2. Standing for NGOs | 212 | ||
| a) The Amendments by Sec. 4a (1) EAA | 212 | ||
| b) The Requirement of Violation of Environmental Law | 213 | ||
| c) Consequences of Non-conformance with Procedural Requirements | 215 | ||
| d) The Restriction of Control of the Courts | 216 | ||
| V. Conclusion | 216 | ||
| References | 217 | ||
| Ulrike Giera: Attorneys for the Environment – an Effective Implementation of Art. 9 (3) Aarhus Convention? | 219 | ||
| Abstract | 219 | ||
| I. Introduction | 220 | ||
| II. Historical Development | 220 | ||
| III. The Term ˋOmbudsman for the Environment’ | 222 | ||
| IV. Organisation | 223 | ||
| V. Purpose and Duties of the Ombudsman for the Environment | 224 | ||
| 1. Participation in Administrative Proceedings | 225 | ||
| 2. Procedural Position of the Ombudsman for the Environment | 227 | ||
| a) Subjective Right and Standing in Austrian Administrative Law | 227 | ||
| b) Standing and Environmental Law | 228 | ||
| c) Procedural Rights of the Ombudsman for the Environment | 228 | ||
| VI. The Ombudsman for the Environment and the Aarhus Convention | 230 | ||
| 1. Implementation of the Aarhus Convention into Austrian Legislation | 230 | ||
| 2. The Ombudsman as an Implementation Measure | 231 | ||
| a) A Member of the Public? | 231 | ||
| b) Promoting the Objectives of the Aarhus Convention | 232 | ||
| References | 233 | ||
| Part IV: An Example for Best Practises in Environmental Participation | 237 | ||
| Stefano Duglio / Maria Beatrice Pairotti / Riccardo Beltramo: Environmental Management: the Environmentally Equipped Industrial Area Model | 239 | ||
| Abstract | 239 | ||
| I. Introduction | 239 | ||
| II. Industrial Ecology and Eco Industrial Park (EIP) | 240 | ||
| III. Management of Industrial Areas in Italy | 242 | ||
| IV. Management of the EEIA | 243 | ||
| 1. Environmental Management System (EMS): a Tool for the Management of the EEIA | 243 | ||
| 2. From the EMS to the Environmental and Landscape Management System (ELMS) | 245 | ||
| V. Conclusions | 246 | ||
| References | 247 | ||
| Eva Julia Lohse: Comparative Conclusions from a German–Italian Dialogue on Participation | 251 | ||
| I. The Theoretical Framework for Environmental Rights: Substance or Procedure – Collective or Individual Interests | 251 | ||
| II. Implementation of Ecological Duties: the Legal Recognition of an ˋEcological Interest’ | 254 | ||
| III. Changes in Public Participation in Administrative Proceedings | 255 | ||
| IV. Changes in Public Participation in Court Proceedings | 257 | ||
| V. The Role of Individuals and NGOs in the Implementation of the AC | 258 | ||
| VI. The Effects of Three Legal Regimes | 259 | ||
| VII. To Conclude | 260 | ||
| List of Authors | 261 |