Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Access to EU environmental information: EU compliance with Aarhus Convention

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between the EU Access to Document Regulation (1049/2001/EC), the Aarhus Regulation (1367/2006/EC) and the provisions of the UNECE Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. It considers the extent to which the combined provisions of the EU regulations succeed in aligning EU law with the access to environmental information provisions of the Convention. The focus of the examination is on the exceptions to disclosure and the differences between the Convention and the EU legislation will be analysed. It will be argued that not only does the EU legislation lack coherence and clarity but also that the combined provisions breach the Convention in a number of key respects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community by Article 1 Treaty on European Union.

  2. UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and access to Justice in Environmental Matters (1998). There are now 46 parties to the Convention.

  3. Referred to as ‘mixity’. For further discussion see Rosas [4].

  4. Article 216 (2) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that agreements concluded by the EU are binding on the institutions of the EU and the Member States.

  5. Regulation 1049/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents OJ L 145/43 31.5.2001.

  6. Regulation 1367/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community Institutions and Bodies OJ L 264/13 25.9.2006.

  7. Case T 396/09 Vereniging Milieudefensie & Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission, judgement of 14 June 2012 (not yet published) at paragraph 69; and T-338/08 Stichting Natuur en Council Milieu & Pesticide Action Network Europe, judgement of 14 June 2012 (not yet published).

  8. Kofi A Anan, Secretary General of the United Nations, 1997–2006 at http://aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org/about/ (accessed 12th August 2013).

  9. Note 2, Recital 7.

  10. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992 (United Nations).

  11. Articles 6–8 provide that the public has a right to participate in certain decisions in relation to activities (projects) that are likely to have significant effect on the environment; plans, programmes and policies relating to the environment; and during the preparation of executive regulations and/or generally applicable legally binding normative instruments.

  12. See for example, Case T-449/10, ClientEarth, European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), European Environmental Bureau (EEB), and BirdLife International v European Commission, judgement of 9 November 2011 (not yet published).

  13. The procedures laid down in Article 9 (1)–(3) must in addition provide adequate and effective remedies, including injunctive relief as appropriate, and be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive. Decisions must be given or recorded in writing and decisions of courts, and whenever possible of other bodies, shall be publicly accessible.

  14. Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decisions-making and access to justice in environmental matters OJ L 124, 17.5.2005, p. 13.

  15. Case T-264/04 WWF European Policy Programme v Council [2007] ECR II-911 at paragraph 72.

  16. Also sometimes referred to as the ‘Openness Regulation’.

  17. The purpose of the ATD was to give effect to the right of public access to documents and the limits of such access in accordance with Article 255 (2) EC Treaty, which only applied only to the documents of the Council, Commission and Parliament.

  18. Decision 93/731 of the Council, Decision 94/90 of the Commission, Decision 97/632 of the European Parliament.

  19. Eeckhout [3], p. 327.

  20. Case 104/81 Hauptzollamt Mainz v C.A. Kupferberg & Cie. KG a A. [1982] ECR 3641 at 11.

  21. See note 6.

  22. Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC OJ L 41/26 14.2.2003.

  23. Cases C-44/07, C-85/06 and C-53/06 against Germany, Greece and Spain respectively.

  24. Case C-340/06 Commission v Austria [2007] ECR I-96∗ and Case C-391/06 Commission v Ireland [2007] ECR I-65.

  25. Aarhus Regulation, Recital 5.

  26. Aarhus Regulation, Article 4.

  27. See Commission Green Paper—Public Access to Documents held by Institutions of the European Community: A Review, COM 2007/0185 final at Sect. 6.

  28. See for example, Case C-365/93 Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-499; Case C-96/95 Commission v Germany [1997] ECR I 1653.

  29. Aarhus Regulation, Recital 13.

  30. The definition of environmental information is provided in Article 2 (d) Aarhus Regulation and conforms to the corresponding definition in Article 2 Aarhus Convention.

  31. “any public institution, body, office or agency established by, or on the basis of, the Treaty”. Article 2 (1) (c) Aarhus Regulation.

  32. Aarhus Regulation, Recital 7.

  33. Article 3 Aarhus Regulation.

  34. In 2011 there were 6447 applications for documents. See Report from the Commission on the application in 2011 of Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, COM 2012/0429 final.

  35. Aarhus Convention, Article 5 (10).

  36. ATD Regulation, Article 4 (5). However in Case C64/05 Sweden v Commission [2007] ECR I-11389 the ECJ held this does not constitute a right of veto.

  37. ATD Regulation, Article 9.

  38. Case T-29/08 Liga para Protecção da Natureza (LPN) v European Commission [2011] ECR II-06021 at 105. This case is subject to a pending appeal in Case C-605/11P.

  39. Note 2, Aarhus Convention—Article 3 (1) Each Party shall take the necessary legislative, regulatory and other measures, including measures to achieve compatibility between the provisions implementing the information, public participation and access-to-justice provisions in this Convention, as well as proper enforcement measures, to establish and maintain a clear, transparent and consistent framework to implement the provisions of this Convention.

  40. The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 SI No. 2004/3391.

  41. Aarhus Convention, Article 4 (4).

  42. Note 36 at para 107.

  43. Ebbesson [2], p. 86.

  44. Although the exception on the grounds that information is not held under Article 4 (3) (a) of the Convention is by its very nature not amenable to such a balancing exercise. See Advocate General Kokott” Opinion in Case C-71/10 Office of Communications v Information Commissioner 10.3.2011.

  45. Aarhus Regulation, Article 4 (1).

  46. Case C-71/10 Office of Communications v Information Commissioner [2011] ECR I-7205.

  47. Case T-211/00 Kuijer v Council [2002] ECR II-485.

  48. See Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v Council [2008] ECR I-4723, paragraphs 44-45; and also Case T-121/05 Borax Europe Ltd. v Commission [2009] ECR II-27.

  49. See Case T-211/00 Kuijer v Council (note 45) at paragraph 53 and also Case T-264/04 WWF European Policy Programme v Council [2007] ECR II-911.

  50. For example ICO Decision Notice FER0206320 Nottinghamshire County Council (30/06/2010); and Office of Communications v Information Commissioner (and T Mobile) EA/2006/0078 (04/09/2007).

  51. Note 36 at p. 86.

  52. Aarhus Convention (note 2), Article 4 (4) (a) Information on emissions which is relevant for the protection of the environment shall be disclosed.

  53. For further discussion of the ‘emissions’ override and definition of emissions see Advocate General Kokotts’s Opinion in Case C-266/09 Stichting Natuur en Milieu Vereniging Milieudefensie Vereniging Goede Waar & Co. v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden [2010] ECR I-13119.

  54. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the experience gained in the application of Directive 2003/4/EC on Public access to Environmental Information, COM 2012 774 final, at p. 7.

  55. Article 4 (1) ATD Regulation lists defence and military matters in the second indent whereas the Convention refers only to national defence.

  56. In 2012 only 1.4 % of applications were refused on the basis of this exception. See note 52 at Annex 1.

  57. The Directive, at Article 4 (2) (d) refers to the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided for by national or Community law. See also Case C-204/09 Flachglas Torgau GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany (not yet published) at paragraph 61.

  58. Jones v Information Commissioner & Environment Agency EA/2011/0157 27.04.2012; South Gloucestershire CC v Information Commissioner & Bovis Homes EA/2007/0032 20.10.2009.

  59. The protection of commercial interests was invoked in 16.83 % of cases in 2011 compared with 11.84 % in 2010. See note 32.

  60. Coppel [1], p. 207.

  61. See note 41, at p. 79.

  62. Aarhus Convention (note 2) Article 4 (4) (g) Where disclosure would adversely affect the interests of a third party which has supplied the information requested without that party being under or capable of being under a legal obligation to do so, and where that party does not consent to the release of the material.

  63. ATD Regulation, Articles 4 (4) and 4 (5).

  64. Case C-64/05 Sweden v Commission [2007] ECR I-11389.

  65. See for example, http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/decision.faces/en/5515/html.bookmark, accessed at 23rd January 2013.

  66. ATD Regulation, By Article 8 (1)—failure to reply to a confirmatory application within the prescribed period shall be considered a negative reply and entitle the applicant to institute court proceedings and/or complain to the Ombudsman.

  67. See for example, Case T-449/10, ClientEarth, European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), European Environmental Bureau (EEB) judgement of 9 November 2011 (not yet published), and Case T 56/13 ClientEarth and Stichting BirdLife Europe v European Commission, judgement of 8 July 2013 (not yet published).

  68. Ibid, at paragraphs 41–42.

  69. See Cases T-111/11 ClientEarth v Commission; T-214/11 ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA; T-245/11 ClientEarth and International Chemical Secretariat v ECHA (not yet published).

  70. Case T-545/11 Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission, judgment of 8 October 2013 (not yet published).

  71. Article 216 (2) TFEU.

  72. Case 181/73, Haegeman [1974] ECR 449, paragraph 5; Case 104/81 Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641; Case 12/86, Demirel [1987] 3719, paragraph 7. Case C-431/05 Merck Genéricos-Productos Farmacêuticos Lda/ Merck Co. Inc, Merck Sharp & Dohme Lda [2007] ECR I 7001, at paragraph 31.

  73. Case 12/86 Demirel v Schwäbisch Gmünd [1987] 3719.

  74. Case C-240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky [2011] ECR I-1255.

  75. Judgment of 10.9.1996 in Case C-61/94, Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I-3989, paragraph 52; judgment of 1.4.2004 in Case C-286/02 Bellio F.lli, [2004] ECR I-3465 paragraph 33; judgment of 10.1.2006 in Case C-344/04, IATA e.a. [2006] ECR I-0403, paragraph 35, and judgment of 12.1.2006 in Case C-311/04, Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht [2006] ECR I-0609, paragraph 25.

  76. ACCC/C/2006/17–EcresponseAddl2007.11.21e.doc 02.05.2007.

  77. Case T-396/09 Vereniging Milieudefensie & Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission; and T-338/08 Stichting Natuur en Council Milieu & Pesticide Action Network Europe (not yet published).

  78. (Case C-308/06 Intertanko and Others [2008] ECR I-4057, paragraph 45, and Joined Cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P FIAMM and Others v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6513, paragraph 110).

  79. Case 70/87 Fediol v Commission [1989] ECR 178, paragraphs 19–22.

  80. Case C-69/89 Nakajima v Council [1991] ECR I-2069, paragraph 31.

  81. Case C-149/96 Portugal v Council [1999] ECR I-8395, paragraph 49; Case C-93/02 P Biret International v Council [2003] ECR I-10497, paragraph 53; and Case C-377/02 Van Parys [2005] ECR I-1465, paragraph 40; see also, to that effect, with regard to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Case 70/87 Fediol v Commission [1989] ECR 1781, paragraphs 19 to 22, and Case C-69/89 Nakajima v Council [1991] ECR I-2069, paragraph 31).

  82. Case T-388/08 is pending an appeal in Case C-404/12 P. Case T-396/09 is subject to three appeals by the Council (Case C-401/12P) Parliament (case C 402/12P) Commission (Case C-403/12P).

  83. On grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers.

  84. Article 264 TFEU. See also Case T-47/96 SDDDA v Commission [1996] ECR II-1559, paragraph 45, and Case T-127/98 UPS Europe v Commission [1999] ECR II-2633, paragraph 50.

  85. See for example, Case C-5/93 P DSM v Commission [1999] ECR I-4695, paragraph 36; and Case T-145/98 ADT Projekt v Commission [2000] ECR II-387, paragraph 83.

  86. Article 266 TFEU. See also Case T-67/94 Ladbroke Racing v Commission [1998] ECR II-1, paragraph 200, and judgment of 29 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-225/07 and T-364/07 Thomson Sales Europe v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 221.

  87. S 50 Freedom of Information Act 2000.

References

  1. Coppel, P.: Information Rights Law & Practice, 3rd edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ebbesson, J., et al. (eds.): The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide, 2nd edn. (2013). Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/ppdm/Aarhus_Implementation_Guide_second_edition_-_text_only.pdf (28.10.2013)

  3. Eeckhout, P.: EU External Relations Law. Oxford EU Law Library, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosas, A.: The European Union and mixed agreements. In: Dashwood, A., Hillion, C. (eds.) The General Law of EC External Relations. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2000)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northumbria Law School, City Campus East, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK

    Susan Wolf

Authors
  1. Susan Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Wolf.

Additional information

This article is based on a presentation given at the conference Access to Documents and Environmental Information in the European Union, organised by ERA on 31 January–1 February 2013 in Trier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wolf, S. Access to EU environmental information: EU compliance with Aarhus Convention. ERA Forum 14, 475–491 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-013-0327-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-013-0327-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation