{"title":"EIA Directive Procedural Guarantees as Substantive Individual Rights in IL v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen","authors":"Alexis Haddock","doi":"10.36640/mjeal.10.2.eia","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Environmental impact assessments serve as a necessary tool for attaining the goals of the Aarhus Convention and the EIA Directive (2011/92). The Aarhus Convention and EIA Directive aim to guarantee the public’s right to participate in environmental decision-making, to be provided information necessary to effectively participate, and to have access to a procedure to challenge a decision. The ECJ’s recent case IL v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen articulates the current interpretation of the European Union Member States’ obligations under the EIA Directive to provide individuals standing to challenge impact assessment decisions. This opinion reaffirmed that in cases where the procedural defect did not affect the outcome of the project’s authorization decision, Member States may restrict standing only to individuals’ claims based on procedural defects where it prevented their participation in the entire decision-making process. Drawing from Advocate General Hogan’s opinion in IL v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, this paper advocates for designating the procedural guarantees themselves as substantive individual rights. The existing EIA Directive and Aarhus Convention procedural rights are rendered ineffective if the information required to be disseminated in environmental impact statements is not provided. Lacking this information and blocked from challenging these decisions in court, individuals cannot be informed participants, cannot access a review procedure, and cannot fully execute their rights under EU law. If unchanged in light of this rights designation, current Member State laws may violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and general principles of Community law.","PeriodicalId":302203,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.10.2.eia","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Environmental impact assessments serve as a necessary tool for attaining the goals of the Aarhus Convention and the EIA Directive (2011/92). The Aarhus Convention and EIA Directive aim to guarantee the public’s right to participate in environmental decision-making, to be provided information necessary to effectively participate, and to have access to a procedure to challenge a decision. The ECJ’s recent case IL v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen articulates the current interpretation of the European Union Member States’ obligations under the EIA Directive to provide individuals standing to challenge impact assessment decisions. This opinion reaffirmed that in cases where the procedural defect did not affect the outcome of the project’s authorization decision, Member States may restrict standing only to individuals’ claims based on procedural defects where it prevented their participation in the entire decision-making process. Drawing from Advocate General Hogan’s opinion in IL v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, this paper advocates for designating the procedural guarantees themselves as substantive individual rights. The existing EIA Directive and Aarhus Convention procedural rights are rendered ineffective if the information required to be disseminated in environmental impact statements is not provided. Lacking this information and blocked from challenging these decisions in court, individuals cannot be informed participants, cannot access a review procedure, and cannot fully execute their rights under EU law. If unchanged in light of this rights designation, current Member State laws may violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and general principles of Community law.
环境影响评估是实现《奥胡斯公约》和环境影响评估指令(2011/92)目标的必要工具。《奥胡斯公约》和《环境影响评估指令》旨在保障公众参与环境决策的权利,为公众提供有效参与所需的信息,并有机会对决定提出质疑。欧洲法院最近的IL诉Land north drhein- westfalen案阐明了欧盟成员国在环境影响评估指令下的义务,即为个人提供挑战影响评估决定的立场。该意见重申,在程序缺陷不影响项目授权决定结果的情况下,会员国可将诉讼时效限制为个人基于程序缺陷提出的索赔,而程序缺陷妨碍了他们参与整个决策过程。本文借鉴司法部长Hogan在IL v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen一案中的意见,主张将程序性保障本身指定为实质性的个人权利。如果没有提供环境影响报告中需要传播的信息,现有的环评指令和《奥胡斯公约》的程序性权利就会失效。由于缺乏这些信息,并且无法在法庭上挑战这些决定,个人无法成为知情参与者,无法进入审查程序,也无法充分行使欧盟法律赋予他们的权利。如果根据这一权利的指定而保持不变,现行成员国的法律可能违反《欧洲联盟基本权利宪章》、《欧洲联盟运作条约》和共同体法律的一般原则。