Possible initiatives on access to justice and economic implications Presentation by Dr. N.J. Philipsen Faculty of Law, Research Institute METRO UNECE,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Analysis of EDF on the Employment Directive transposition Future challenges.
Advertisements

Access to the European Court of Justice: is the door unbolted? Access to the European Court of Justice: is the door unbolted? Carol Hatton SolicitorWWF-UK.
Comments Mari KOYANO Graduate School of Law Hokkaido University 1.
INTRODUCTION INTO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Marko Jovanovic, LL.M. MASTER IN EUROPEAN INTEGRATION Private International Law in the.
The fundamentals of EC competition law
Prof. Dr. Sabine Schlacke Institute for Environmental and Planning Law The Europeanization of the access to justice in environmental matters – the German.
Secretariat to the Espoo Convention and its Protocol on SEA
Tamara Ćapeta  Comparable to evolutive federations : Article 1 TEU:  “By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves.
Nuclear Energy in the European Union – the need for a level playing field Tobias Heldt Maastricht University.
An introduction to the EU and its legislation. Member States currently 15 –Austria- Ireland –Belgium- Luxembourg –Denmark- Netherlands –Finland- Portugal.
The Sixth Annual African Consumer Protection Dialogue Conference
1 The Current Situation Regarding PPPs and Concessions in the EU Olivier Moreau European Commission, DG MARKT.C1
Implementing the Second Pillar of the Aarhus Convention: Problems Identified in the National Implementation Reports Magda Tóth Nagy, Senior Expert Geneva,
EC Study on the Implementation of Articles 9.3 and 9.4 of the Aarhus Convention in the EU Presentation at the 5th meeting of the Task Force on Access to.
Baker & McKenzie Presented by Gabriela Vendlova 3 December 2002 Intellectual Property Rights: Importance of Trademark Protection in the Digital World.
Habitats Directive - lessons from case-law of Court of Justice of European Union since 1999 European Commission, DG Environment.
Fifth Meeting of the Access to Justice Task Force June 13 th – 14 th, 2012 Geneva.
The Aarhus & Espoo Conventions Making implementation work for stakeholders.
DG Enterprise and Industry Philippe JEAN Sustainable Mobility & Automotive Industry Unit WP.29 Enforcement Working Group meeting 27 June update.
ENAR Policy Seminar From Racism to Equality? Realising the potential of European Anti- Discrimination Law 6-7 October 2006 Brussels.
Article 9, paras.1 and 2 of the Aarhus Convention: overview “IMPLEMENTING THE AARHUS CONVENTION TODAY: PAVING THE WAY TO A BETTER ENVIRONMENT AND GOVERNANCE.
Animal Welfare EU Strategy Introduction Community Action Plan The Commission's commitment to EU citizens, stakeholders, the EP and.
Frans Oosterhuis, 2012 EEEN forum, Leuven, 9 February 2012 Evaluating environmental law and policy in The Netherlands: experiences from the ‘STEM’ programme.
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS New EU Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime 20 September 2012 CABVIS Conference.
The IPPC Directive and its implementation Alexandre Paquot European Commission Environment Directorate-General Phare Capacity.
TEN-T Experts Briefing, March Annual Call Award Criteria.
UNDP Handbook for conducting technology needs assessments and Preliminary analysis of countries’ TNAs UNFCCC Seminar on the development and transfer on.
Implementation Challenges of Access to Justice in Europe C s a b a K i s s TAI EMLA Justice and Environment.
1 DG Enterprise & Industry European Commission Conference on Better Regulation: Practical Steps Forward Reykjavík 6 June 2006 OVERVIEW OF THE BETTER REGULATION.
Capacity building workshop on environment and health Public participation and the right to know: Aarhus Convention and PRTR Protocol Monica Guarinoni Sofia,
Recommendation 2001/331/EC: Review and relation to sectoral inspection requirements Miroslav Angelov European Commission DG Environment, Unit A 1 Enforcement,
Jean Monnet Chair of EU Labour Law Academic Year Silvia Borelli:
Access for Whom? The issue of Legal Standing Carol Hatton Solicitor, WWF-UK “Opening the doors to justice: the challenge of strenghthening public access”
EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007)1 Reviewing. 2 Reviewing is the process of EIA report assessment produced during EIA process is concerned with assessing.
The Principles Governing EU Environmental Law. 2 The importance of EU Environmental Law at the European and globallevel The importance of EU Environmental.
The Court of Justice of the European Union and its case law in the area of civil justice European Commission specific programme “Civil Justice” project.
Protocol on Water and Health: added value and challenges for public participation Tsvietkova Anna MAMA-86’s Water and Sanitation Program Workshop on Water.
Planned activities for 2016 on better implementation and better regulation in the field of environment policy Make It Work Conference 10/11 Dec 2015 DG.
The Aarhus Convention and the Access to Justice Pillar: Article 9.3 Stephen Stec Tirana, November 2008.
E-PRTR Refit evaluation and Article 17 official data review 1 2 nd Global Round Table on PRTRs 25 November 2015 Andreas Grangler.
Effective Justice? - Synthesis report in EC study on implementation of Art. 9.3 and 9.4 of the AC in 17 of the Union’s Member States; 2012 Presentation.
CRIMINAL LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 1 April 2015 THE LISBON TREATY AND CRIMINAL LAW Dr. sc. Zoran Burić Department of Criminal Procedural Law University.
Aarhus Convention Promoting Transparency in Land Administration Aphrodite Smagadi Legal Affairs Officer Aarhus Convention Secretariat Environment, Housing.
The EU and Access to Environmental Information Unit D4 European Commission, Directorate General for the Environment 1.
Pilot Project on implementation of SEA for regional planning in Ukraine Prof. Dr. Michael Schmidt Dmitry Palekhov Brandenburg University of Technology.
Impact analysis during the harmonisation process with the EU and effects on Lithuanian economy Giedrius Kadziauskas, Senior Policy analyst 23 rd Fabruary.
Cases C-401 to 403/12 and C-404 to 405/12: No review of legality in light of the Aarhus Convention Dr. Mariolina Eliantonio, LL.M. Prof. Chris Backes Maastricht.
DG ENV Environmental assessment procedures for energy infrastructure projects of common interest (PCIs)
Council of Europe Child Participation Assessment Tool Agnes von Maravic Children’s Rights Division Council of Europe Based on slides prepared by Gerison.
Health and Food Safety EU strategy for Pharmaceuticals in the Environment Patrizia Tosetti DG SANTE European Commission China/EU Pharmaceutical Industry.
Participatory Environmental Governance : Role of Communities in Europe and Asia Jona Razzaque Reader in Law Bristol Law School, UWE, Bristol, UK Bristol.
This course was developed in cooperation with the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC.
1 Legal Frameworks for Public and Stakeholder Engagement by Carl Bruch Asia Regional Workshop on Stakeholder Engagement in International Waters Management.
ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION presentation JOHN HONTELEZ, SECRETARY GENERAL EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL BUREAU Seminar Dublin 26 February 2010.
Commission Staff Working Document Free Movement of Workers in the Public Sector 18 January 2011 Ursula Scheuer European Commission DG Employment, Social.
Lost in Translations – An Examination of the Legal & Practical Problems Associated with the Implementation (or Non-Implementation) of Directive 2010/64/EU.
Promoting Equality and Non-Discrimination for Persons with Disabilities ____________________________________________ Report written by Professor Lisa.
Session 3 General RIA Training 6–8 July 2009 EuropeAid/125317/D/SER/TR
Public Participation in Biofuels Voluntary
European Labour Law Jean Monnet Chair of EU Labour Law Academic Year Silvia Borelli: Please, check the web site for.
The EU and International Environmental Law
EU Competences Tamara Ćapeta 2016.
Business environment in the EU Prepared by Dr. Endre Domonkos (PhD)
INTRODUCTION INTO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Council of Europe Child Participation Assessment Tool
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Animal Welfare EU Strategy
European Labour Law Jean Monnet Chair of EU Labour Law Academic Year Silvia Borelli: Please, check the web site for.
IPPC Review Stakeholder Hearing
Introduction to the first meeting of the IPPC Review Advisory Group
Presentation transcript:

Possible initiatives on access to justice and economic implications Presentation by Dr. N.J. Philipsen Faculty of Law, Research Institute METRO UNECE, Geneva, 13 June 2012

Overview Research team Goals and set-up study Preliminary results –Law & Economics analysis Forthcoming –Empirics – country studies

Research team Maastricht University, Faculty of Law, research institute METRO –Prof.dr. Michael Faure –Dr. Niels Philipsen in co-operation with: –Prof.dr. Chris Backes –Dr. Manuela Mühl –Dr. Leïla Choukroune –Mr. Fokke Fernhout

Goals and set-up study Study for DG Environment Goal: –to present, at EU level, the (socio-) economic effects of changes in the regulation of public access to justice in environmental matters –the focus will be on the effects of an increased access to justice when compared to the costs of non-action Methods: –Law & Economics (i.e. economic analysis of law) –Law & Society –empirical study (country studies / interviews)

Goals and set-up study Four options (defined by DG ENV) 1.Business as usual (soft-law approach) 2.Commission addresses any existing gaps in MS provisions for ensuring access to justice on the basis of Article 258 TFEU 3.Drafting a new legislative proposal targeted on entitlement to access implied by (in particular) Janecek and Slovak case with the conditions of access mirroring those already established for EIA and IPPC 4.Sticking to the original proposal, COM(2003)624

Goals and set-up study Set-up –Ch. 1 Introduction –Ch. 2 Legal background –Ch. 3 Examining the four options –Ch. 4 Economic analysis stakeholder analysis (incentives) economics of federalism: levelling the playing field –Ch. 5 Law and Society approach Public Interest Litigation and socio-economic rights –Ch. 6 Empirical study –Ch. 7 Conclusions and recommendations

Preliminary results Current status of research: –Interim report (end of June) –Legal background: finished, not presented –Law & Society: in progress, not presented –Empirics: forthcoming (Final Report) Here: focus on Law & Economics analysis –economic analysis of procedural law –stakeholder analysis –levelling the playing field

Law and Economics Expected benefits and costs of an enhanced access to justice Benefits: litigation helps to solve a market failure (negative externalities) + resulting benefits for plaintiffs; legal certainty? Costs: courts (more cases, workload judiciary) + costs for business and administrative agencies; overdeterrence? Incentives stakeholders: –courts –administrative agencies –plaintiffs (citizens, NGOs) –defendants (industry) Analyse effects of the ‘four options’

Law and Economics and ‘locus standi’ Private law remedies to be used by individuals (e.g. in torts) may not work in environmental law –damage widespread => rational apathy note that even class actions (where possible) may not always follow due to high transaction costs –also: causal link, latency, etc. Basic rationale for ‘locus standi’ requirement: gatekeeper argument, i.e. preventing inefficient use of the court system and overdeterrence Argument may be different in public law, such as judicial review cases

Effects of four options Option 1: business as usual (soft law approach) –gaps in transposition and application of Art. 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention would remain; co-operation and promotion strategies continue to be used by Commission effects on (social) costs for courts and administrative authorities and (private) costs for plaintiffs and defendants to a large extent depend on Member State law costs for Commission: drafting guidelines etc. legal uncertainty remains, which could lead to underdeterrence no EU level standards => no level playing field

Effects of four options Option 2: addressing existing gaps in MS provisions by Commission –based on case law, in particular Trianel, Janecek, Djurgarden and Slovak case => wider access to justice for individuals and environmental NGOs additional costs for European Commission and Member States concerned –including, possibly, adaptation costs for MSs if national law needs to be adapted (also under options 1, 3 and 4) infringement procedures lead to direct costs (time spent in court, legal fees) and indirect costs (opportunity costs and knock-on effects on other policies)

Option 2: addressing existing gaps in MS provisions by Commission (cont’d) More access to justice for individuals (Janecek) and NGOs (Trianel), depending on national law –plaintiffs: incentives to litigate increase –defendants: costs increase; deterrent effects? –courts and administrations: workload increases Slovak case: MS courts must facilitate access to justice beyond cases falling under the EIA and IPPC Directives –if interpreted broadly, effects described above increase still some legal uncertainty: interpretation of some case law (notably Slovak case) is debated, outcome pending cases unknown some differences remain: no level playing field?

Effects of four options Option 3: new proposal –targeted on entitlement to access implied by Janecek and Slovak case with the conditions of access mirroring those already established for EIA and IPPC many similarities with effects of option 2 (if Slovak case is interpreted broadly), but: –lower costs for Commission –more legal certainty (depending on implementation of new Directive in MSs) and deterrent effects (compliance) overdeterrence can to some extent be avoided –e.g. excludes provision on entitlement to challenge all administrative acts and omissions (as in option 4) level playing field

Effects of four options Option 4: proposal COM(2003) 624 final –including e.g. requirements to introduce administrative procedures (Art. 6, “request for internal review”) and criteria for recognition of qualified entities (Art. 8) Stakeholder analysis –courts: higher workload, possibly court delay –administrations: higher costs (“internal review” procedures)? –plaintiffs: wide access to justice –defendants: higher costs if more cases; lower costs if legal certainty is provided high environmental protection OR ‘frivolous suits’ and overdeterrence? legal certainty OR discussion on scope of Directive, creating uncertainty and leading to higher costs? level playing field

Levelling the playing field Economics of federalism: harmonisation when: 1.transboundary externalities 2.economies of scale 3.race to the bottom 4.levelling the playing field / internal market argument –first three arguments apply to substantive environmental law –last argument can also be applied to procedures RTB: Pollution haven hypothesis –Destructive competition and risk of ‘regulatory chill’ LPF: Minimum standards and legal certainty

Preliminary conclusions Stakeholder analysis points at option 3 –compared to options 1 and 2: legal certainty, more deterrent effects, less costly than opt. 2 MC of awarding more access to justice via a Directive may be minimal whereas MB of reducing uncertainty and creating a level playing field are likely to be high –compared to 4: less costly, no overdeterrence, less controversial (but less access for NGOs) excludes e.g. reference to “all administrative acts and omissions” and criteria for recognition NGOs Also: creation of a ‘level playing field’

Empirics – Country studies Follow up on stakeholder analysis Interviews –potential plaintiffs and defendants, members of courts dealing with environmental cases, legal academics Available literature, e.g: –bulletins from NGOs –websites administrative agencies Collection available empirical evidence, e.g.: –costs of inaction –impression of costs and benefits related to the 4 options

Empirics – Country studies Selection of Member States 2 (or 3) countries where there already is a wide access to justice –candidates include, inter alia, Portugal, Latvia, Spain and The Netherlands 2 (or 3) countries with relatively restricted access and/or ‘controversial’ conditions of access –candidates include Sweden, Slovakia, Austria, Germany and the UK