ECJ (Opinion) Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Directive 85/337/EEC – Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment – Directive 96/61/EC – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Access . .
ECJ Directive 85/337/EEC – Public participation in environmental decision-making procedures – Right of access to a review procedure to challenge decisions authorising projects likely to have significant effects on the environment Judges: Bonichot P Citations:  EUECJ C-263/08 Links: Bailii Statutes: Directive 85/337/EEC, Directive 2003/35/EC Jurisdiction: European Citing: Opinion – Djurgarden-Lilla Vartans Miljoskyddsforening v Stockholms … Continue reading Djurgarden-Lilla Vartans Miljoskyddsforening v Stockholms kommun genom dess marknamnd: ECJ 15 Oct 2009
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a member of the Ryburgh Village Action Group. The proposal involved the erection of two silos … Continue reading Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another: SC 22 Jul 2015
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters – Concept of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings R Silva de Lapuerta, P  EUECJ C-530/11,  Env LR D2,  3 WLR 853, ECLI:EU:C:2014:67,  3 CMLR 6,  WLR(D) 69 Bailii, WLRD … Continue reading European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland: ECJ 13 Feb 2014
ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – Article 10a – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 15a – Access to justice in environmental matters – Meaning of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings L Bay Larsen, acting as P  EUECJ C-260/11,  WLR(D) 136,  1 WLR 2914,  3 CMLR 18, … Continue reading Edwards v Environment Agency (No 2): ECJ 11 Apr 2013
The court considered the consequences of a finding that the UK was in breach of the Aarhus Convention, as regards the ‘prohibitively expensive’ cost of proceedings. The Agency had given permission for the change of fuel for a cement works to shredded tyres, and the applicants had mounted a sustained challenge. The applicants had not … Continue reading Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others (No 2): SC 11 Dec 2013
ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 85/337/EEC – Environmental impact assessment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Right to challenge a development consent decision – Temporal application – Development consent procedure initiated before the period prescribed for transposing Directive 2003/35/EC expired – Decision taken after that date – Conditions of … Continue reading Gemeinde Altrip v Land Rheinland-Pfalz: ECJ 7 Nov 2013
ECJ Opinion – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ judicial procedures – Transposition Kokott AG C-530/11,  EUECJ C-530/11 Bailii Directive 2003/35/EC European Citing: See Also – Edwards v Environment Agency (No 2) ECJ 11-Apr-2013 ECJ Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 85/337/EEC – Directive 2003/35/EC – … Continue reading European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland: ECJ 12 Sep 2013
Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only at prohibitive expense. The costs officers asked how the principle should be applied. … Continue reading Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others: SC 15 Dec 2010
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
ECJ (Judgment Of The Court (Eighth Chamber)) – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June . .