《奥胡斯条例》行政(自我)审查机制:欧盟司法公正的必然失败?

Q3 Social Sciences
Angelika Krężel
{"title":"《奥胡斯条例》行政(自我)审查机制:欧盟司法公正的必然失败?","authors":"Angelika Krężel","doi":"10.54648/eelr2023006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, the administrative review mechanism under the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ Aarhus Regulation is analysed. It is argued that the mechanism still raises concerns, among others, regarding impartiality and fairness, as required by the Aarhus Convention (the ‘old problems’). The conclusion is that although the Aarhus Regulation administrative review mechanism was introduced in order to strengthen access to justice in environmental matters in the EU legal system, it does not significantly contribute to this aim. Instead, it constitutes the mechanism of self-review for the EU institutions and bodies. Nevertheless, it is argued that this failure is inevitable and lays down in its very foundations. In practical terms, it seems that the mechanism designed to ‘provide for access to judicial or other review procedures for challenging acts and omissions by private persons’ effectively contributes to another than access to justice component of environmental democracy, mainly access to information.\nAccess to justice, EU legal remedies, environmental law, administrative review mechanism, Aarhus Convention, Aarhus Regulation","PeriodicalId":53610,"journal":{"name":"European Energy and Environmental Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aarhus Regulation Administrative (self-) Review Mechanism: The Inevitable Failure to Contribute to Access to Justice in the EU?\",\"authors\":\"Angelika Krężel\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/eelr2023006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, the administrative review mechanism under the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ Aarhus Regulation is analysed. It is argued that the mechanism still raises concerns, among others, regarding impartiality and fairness, as required by the Aarhus Convention (the ‘old problems’). The conclusion is that although the Aarhus Regulation administrative review mechanism was introduced in order to strengthen access to justice in environmental matters in the EU legal system, it does not significantly contribute to this aim. Instead, it constitutes the mechanism of self-review for the EU institutions and bodies. Nevertheless, it is argued that this failure is inevitable and lays down in its very foundations. In practical terms, it seems that the mechanism designed to ‘provide for access to judicial or other review procedures for challenging acts and omissions by private persons’ effectively contributes to another than access to justice component of environmental democracy, mainly access to information.\\nAccess to justice, EU legal remedies, environmental law, administrative review mechanism, Aarhus Convention, Aarhus Regulation\",\"PeriodicalId\":53610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Energy and Environmental Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Energy and Environmental Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/eelr2023006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Energy and Environmental Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eelr2023006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了新旧《奥胡斯条例》下的行政复议机制。有人认为,该机制仍然引起人们对《奥胡斯公约》要求的公正性和公平性等问题的关注(“老问题”)。结论是,尽管引入《奥胡斯条例》行政审查机制是为了在欧盟法律体系中加强在环境事务中诉诸司法的机会,但它并没有对这一目标做出重大贡献。相反,它构成了欧盟机构和机构的自我审查机制。然而,有人认为,这种失败是不可避免的,并奠定了其基础。实际上,旨在“为质疑私人行为和不作为提供诉诸司法或其他审查程序的机会”的机制似乎有效地促进了环境民主中除诉诸司法之外的另一个组成部分,主要是获取信息。诉诸司法、欧盟法律补救、环境法、行政审查机制、《奥胡斯公约》、《奥胡斯条例》
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Aarhus Regulation Administrative (self-) Review Mechanism: The Inevitable Failure to Contribute to Access to Justice in the EU?
In this article, the administrative review mechanism under the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ Aarhus Regulation is analysed. It is argued that the mechanism still raises concerns, among others, regarding impartiality and fairness, as required by the Aarhus Convention (the ‘old problems’). The conclusion is that although the Aarhus Regulation administrative review mechanism was introduced in order to strengthen access to justice in environmental matters in the EU legal system, it does not significantly contribute to this aim. Instead, it constitutes the mechanism of self-review for the EU institutions and bodies. Nevertheless, it is argued that this failure is inevitable and lays down in its very foundations. In practical terms, it seems that the mechanism designed to ‘provide for access to judicial or other review procedures for challenging acts and omissions by private persons’ effectively contributes to another than access to justice component of environmental democracy, mainly access to information. Access to justice, EU legal remedies, environmental law, administrative review mechanism, Aarhus Convention, Aarhus Regulation
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信