1. The Aarhus Convention and the role of the Courts
Presentation at Special Session for the Promoting of Judicial Networking in Environmental Matters
Geneva 15 June 2015
Professor Jan Darpö
Faculty of Law/
Uppsala Universitet

2. Development of the modern international protection: international perspective
Protecting individuals
1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
1966: Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCRR) - classic rights
1966: Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
1966: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
1979: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against women
1989: Convention on the Rights of the Child
Protecting the environment
1972: the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
1992: the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
2000: Millennium Development Goals
2002: Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development
You can name the major instruments and point out that the deterioration of the environment, including in transboundary context, in 60th has lead to the development of the soft law to protect the environment as a whole and a new generation of human rights (right to a clean environment). 2

3. Development of the modern international protection: regional perspective
Protecting individuals
1950: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
1952: First Protocol to the Convention
Case law of ECtHR
Protecting the environment – “Environment for Europe” process
1998: Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (4th Ministerial Conference in Aarhus)
2003: Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers
2005: Amendment to the Convention regarding genetically modified organisms (Art.6bis and Annex I bis)
Although, we should keep in mind the Central Counties are not Parties to ECHR 3

4. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Article 6
- (E)veryone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law…
Article 8
- Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
Article 13
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy…

5. ECtHR on A2J and the environment
Lopez Ostra v. Spain (ECtHR )
Guerra v. Italy (ECtHR )
Hatton ao v. United Kingdom
(ECtHR och ECtHR/GC )
Kyrtatos v. Greece (ECtHR )
Fadeyeva v. Ryssland (ECtHR )
Ledyayeva ao v. Russia (ECtHR )
Taşkin ao v. Turkey (ECtHR )
Giacomelli v. Italy (ECtHR )
Moreno Gomez v. Spain (ECtHR )
Dubetska ao v. Ukraine (ECtHR )
Matti Eurén v. Finland (ECtHR )
MKN, kväveoxider o partiklar
SNF anmälde 2008
MN beslut i april-09: Trädplanetring, lägre hastigheter, dubbförbud, tung trafik – rådighet
SE fällt i CJEU i maj-11
Lst JO-anmält av SNF samma månad
Lst beslut i juli-11; partiklarna
Sth stad & SNF överklagar…

6. The Aarhus Convention THREE PILLARS
Art. 4-5: Environmental Information…
Art. 6-8: Public Participation…
Art. 9:…Access to Justice…

7. 3. Access to justice (A2J) Article 9.1-9.4
Access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent body (ECHR)
…adequate and effective remedies, including injunctive relief…
…and be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive…

8. What is to be reviewed..?
Article 9.1: Information: Article 4; “any person”
Article 9.2: Permits - article 6; listed activities, substantive and procedural legality of any decision, act, omission
Article 9.3; Administrative or judicial procedures to challenge acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities which contravene provisions of its national law relating to the environment…

9. Different procedural system
Adm
court
General
court
Adm appeal-
body/tribunal
Administrative or Civil procedure; burden of proof, responsibility of the court, costs, etc
Scope of the trial
Outcome; quash or reform…
Authority/
Permit body

10. The AC does NOT demand… Actio popularis Abstract norm control
Direct action in court
= A2J for the PC, but neutral to the ways….

11. Key issues: Standing Should trees have standing?
Sufficient interest/ Impairment of a right
Individuals
NGOs
*******
Should trees have standing?
(Chris Stone, 1972)

12. Court fees: between 100 - and 5.000 €, commonly fixed...
Costs for lawyers: between 0 and €…
Costs for experts: courts’ responsibility, tables, without limits…
Cost distribution: all models (LPP  each bears his/her own costs)…
Security/bonds…
Legal aid…

13. Effectiveness of A2J Duration! … Usually no suspensive effect…
Injunction sometimes difficult to obtain
Many cases ‘won in court, but lost on the ground’ (‘victory on paper’): Lappel Bank (UK)

14. ….and finally… THANK YOU FOR LISTENING..!    jan.darpo@jur.uu.se
In English