(WK-intern) – EU-Kommission legt Berufung gegen Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs (EuGH) zum Rechtszugang ein.

Umweltverbände sind empört.

Der EU-Gerichtshof hatte im Juni 2012 verkündet, dass die EU Umsetzung der Aarhus-Konvention nicht richtig sei.

Das 1998 unterzeichnete internationale Abkommen schreibt jeder Person Rechte im Umweltschutz zu. Die Richter waren der Auffassung, die europäischen Regeln, die diese Rechte umsetzen und näher ausgestalten, seien zu eng gefasst und in Teilen nicht mit der Aarhus-Konvention vereinbar, siehe hierzu EU-News 21. Juni 2012.

Die EU-Kommission dagegen in Berufung gehen. Jeremy Wates, Generalsekretär des Europäischen Umweltbüros (EEB), nannte es heuchlerisch, dass die Kommission einerseits das Jahr 2013 zum Jahr des Europäischen Bürgers ausruft und andererseits gegen Gerichtsurteile vorgeht, die die Rechte eben der Bürger stärken sollen.

Die angemessene Reaktion auf die Urteile wäre die Stärkung des kritisierten Rechtsakts gewesen, heißt es in einer gemeinsamen Reaktion von EEB und ClientEarth. Das Urteil des EuGH war im Juni von Umweltverbänden als große Errungenschaft gefeiert worden, da es für sie eine klare Stärkung bedeutete.

Die EU-Kommission will außerdem auch gegen ein Urteil zum besseren Zugang zu Informationen bei den EU-Institutionen vorgehen.

Die Meldung:

NGOs condemn anti-democratic move by European Commission

The European Environmental Bureau and ClientEarth today condemned in the strongest possible terms yesterday’s decision by the European Commission to appeal against two rulings by the General Court which highlighted deficiencies in the EU legislation on access to justice.

On 14 June 2012, the EU General Court adopted two decisions which separately concluded that the EU legislation intended to apply the provisions of the Aarhus Convention (1) to the EU institutions, Regulation 1367/2006, is not fully in line with the Convention, as it allows the public to challenge only a very narrow categories of acts. Instead of setting out to change the law and grant citizens their rights, the Commission decided to appeal the rulings.

“It is pure hypocrisy that on the one hand the Commission proclaims that 2013 will be the European Year of Citizens and at the same time launches appeals against Court rulings that would give those same citizens greater rights to challenge violations of the law,” said EEB Secretary General Jeremy Wates. “This comes on the heels of the Commission’s equally disgraceful attempts to weaken the transparency requirements pertaining to information held by EU institutions.”

Anais Berthier of ClientEarth said “These decisions are crucial as they address one of the most important violations of the Convention by the Regulation and offer an opportunity to the EU institutions to correct the mistake they made when adopting the Regulation of giving it too restrictive a scope. The three institutions involved should embrace the opportunity to finally provide access to justice for NGOs and confirm the basic democratic right to challenge unlawful decisions that damage the environment by asking the institution which has adopted it to review its legality.”

The appropriate response from the Commission to the rulings would have been to start preparing a proposal to strengthen the EU Regulation 1367/2006 that is supposed to apply the Aarhus Convention to the EU institutions. Instead, it has decided to invest its efforts into, at best, delaying citizens being able to exercise their rights and at worst, denying these all together. However, the issue is primarily a political one, not a legal one. At the heart of the matter is whether the EU should be a Europe of citizens or a Europe of large institutions dominated by business interests. The current situation in which businesses have access to the courts because they are able to prove a direct interest, whereas NGOs concerned to protect the environment do not, is unbalanced. Through this decision, it is clear that the Commission under President Barroso’s leadership has no desire to change this.

“As guardian of the Treaty, the Commission bears a special responsibility for ensuring that EU law is complied with,” said Ms. Berthier. “Furthermore, it is responsible for ensuring that the EU secondary legislation which is adopted is lawful. International agreements are binding upon the EU institutions and form an integral part of EU law. It could be argued that first failing to ensure the compliance of EU law with an international agreement and then subsequently appealing the Court ruling that such an international agreement is being breached without sound legal arguments goes against the provisions of the Treaty itself.”

“The arrogance that this decision reveals is staggering,” said Mr. Wates. “They are spending taxpayers’ money to attempt to limit the democratic rights of the public to have access to the courts to protect the environment. This is a kick in the teeth for the European public who the EU institutions are supposed to serve.”

(1) 1998 UNECE Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus Convention)

Contact details: Alison Abrahams – EEB Communications Officer – +32 (0) 2289 13 09 / +32 489 304 962

BACKGROUND NOTES
In case T-338/08, the NGO Applicants made a request pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation 1367/2006 to the Commission to review Regulation 149/2008 setting maximum residue levels for certain products[1].
In case T-396/09, the NGOs asked the Commission to review the decision granting the Kingdom of the Netherlands a temporary exemption from the obligations laid down by Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe[2].
In both cases, the Commission considered the requests inadmissible as the concerned acts were not „administrative acts“ as defined in Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation 1367/2006 because they were not of individual scope.
The General Court held that the Aarhus Regulation was not compatible with the Aarhus Convention with regard to the types of acts that could be challenged. The Court expressly considered that, because Article 10(1) of the Regulation limits the concept of “acts” that may be challenged by NGOs to “administrative acts” defined in Article 2(1)(g) of the Regulation as “measures of individual scope”, it is not compatible with Article 9(3) of the Convention.

PR: http://www.eeb.org