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
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
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 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 (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 . .