Instruments of European law and questions concerning their implementation at national level as exemplified by water law, immission control law and waste law

  • Lothar Knopp
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Protection in the European Union book series (ENVPROTEC, volume 1)

Abstract

As already noted by Breuer l in 1993, there are more and more instances of conflict between German and European environmental law. The number of cases lost by the Federal Republic before the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) on charges of inadequate implementation of EC directives stood at an impressive 28 by the end of the year 20002. As primary and secondary EC law takes precedence over the law of Member States at least in principle3, national legislation in those areas covered by EC law is thus bound to follow European specifications. The contradiction in practice is seen especially in environmental law, where the opening of proceedings against the Federal Republic for violations of contract has recently given rise to repeated accusations by the EU4 that the Federal Republic has not, or has improperly incorporated the respective EC directives into its national environmental legislation.

Keywords

Europe Expense Monopoly 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. 1.
    Breuer, Entwicklungen des europäischen Umweltrechts - Ziele, Wege und Irrwege, 1993, p. 5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Versteyl, in: Erbguth (ed.), Europäisierung des nationalen Umweltrechts: Stand and Perspektiven, 2001, p. 137ff., 138, who points out further that Belgium is in the lead with 29 convictions by this date and that Italy, like Germany, also stands at 28; cf. Breuer, loc. cit., p. 5, also refs. ibid. note 2.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cf. for details Ehlers, in: Erichsen (ed.), Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 11th ed., 1998, § 3 IV 1 margin note 42 with ref. to the jurisdiction of the ECJ and the Fed. Const. Court.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E.g. recent cases involving the Waste Oil Regulation, PBC wastes, FFH Directive.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cf. e.g. Schmahl, DÖV 1999, 852ff., 852; otherwise her article deals particularly with the impact of EC law on German local government law.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cf. the concluding appeal by Breuer (note 1 above), p. 100; Kloepfer, Umweltrecht, 2nd ed., 1998, § 9 margin note 7 points out the close legal interconnection between European and national law, especially environmental law, and denies the one-sided predominance of the European level, stressing instead the mutual influence exerted by the national legal systems of the Member States and Community law.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kloepfer, loc. cit., § 9 margin note 8 with refs.; cf. in detail Himmelmann, EG-Umweltrecht and nationale Gestaltungsspielräume, 1st ed., 1997, p. 32 ff. with refs.; Frenz, Europäisches Umweltrecht, 1997, margin notes 65 ff. with refs.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cf. for details Kloepfer, Umweltrecht, § 9 margin notes 16 ff.; Ehlers (note 3 above), § 3 II margin notes 26 ff.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kloepfer, loc. cit., § 9 margin notes 21, 46 ff. with refs.; Breuer (note 1 above), p. 22 ff. with refs.; in detail Hurrelmann, loc. cit., p. 19 ff.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grundgesetz — GG; Cf. Kloepfer, Umweltrecht, § 9 margin notel7 with ref. to ECJ Co11.1963, 1 ff. and Fed. Const. Court 31, 145, 174 f.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cf. e.g. Ehlers (note 3 above), § 3 II 2 margin note 27; on regulations as “secondary Community law” see Frenz (note 7 above), margin note 196.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Regulation allowing voluntary participation by organizations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme of 19.03.2001, OJ L 114/1, 24.04. 2001. Regulation (EC) 761/ 2001 — EMAS II = Eco-Management and Audit Scheme: see e.g. Langerfeldt, NVwZ 2001, 538 f.; Knopp, NVwZ 2000, 1121 ff., NVwZ 2001, 1098 ff.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Regulation (EEC) 1836/93 of 29.06. 1993, OJ C 168/1, also OJ 1995 L 203/17.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cf. also Knopp/Ebermann-Finken, EWS 2000, 329 ff., 329 with refs.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Umweltbundesamt (ed.), EG-Umweltaudit in Deutschland. Erfahrungsbericht 1995 bis 1998, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cf. Kloepfer, Umweltrecht, § 9 margin note 17 with refs.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cf. for details Frenz (note 7 above), margin notes 198 ff.; Ehlers (note 3 above), § 3 II 2 margin notes 28 ff.; also Kloepfer, Umweltrecht, § 9 margin note 18.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frenz, loc. cit., margin note 198; Ehlers, loc. cit., margin note 28.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    On the implementation of directives in detail see Himmelmann (note 7 above), p. 130 ff. with refs.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ehlers (note 3 above), § 3 II 2 margin note 29.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kloepfer, Umweltrecht, § 9 margin note 18 with refs.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Council Directive 97/L/EC of 03.03.1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the obligation to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment of certain public and private projects.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on the creation of a regulatory framework for measures of the Community in the area of water policy of 23.10.2000, OJ L 327.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    For the sake of clarity, the term “Artikelgesetz” is henceforth used for this statutory order. Cf. Fed. Law Gazette 1, p. 1950.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on disused motor vehicles of 18.09.2000, OJ L 269/34.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    See note 23 above.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    See Breuer in: Erbguth (ed.), Europäisierung des nationalen Umweltrechts: Stand and Perspektiven, 2001, p. 87 ff., 87 for an overview of this “patchwork”; for details on the WFD see also Faßbender, NVwZ 2001, 241 ff.; Caspar, DÖV 2001, 529 ff.; Knopp, ZUR 6/2001, 368 ff.; Ruchay, ZUR Sonderheft/2001, 115 ff. and refs.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Feßbender, NVwZ 2001, 241 with refs.; for details on the backgound history of the WFD see e.g. Breuer, loc. cit., p. 87 ff. with refs.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Draft law of the Fed. Govnt. for a 7th law to amend the WHG of 07.09.2001, BR-Drs. 704/ 01; Opinion of the Fed. Council of 19.10.2001, BR-Drs 704/01 (Decision) and 27 modification suggestions, mostly in the interest of greater clarity and precision. In its counter-statement, the Fed. Govnt. agreed to 18 of the modification suggestions while the remaining 9 were rejected on constitutional or technical grounds; on the draft law of the Fed. Govnt. of 07.12.2001, the opinion of the Fed. Council and the counter-statement see BT-Drs. 14/7755; the first reading of the draft law in the Bundestag took place without discussion on 13.12.2001 — plenary protocol 14/208, p. 20563 B-D, with decision, p. 20563 D — referral to the Bundestag Committees for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety/Trade and Technology/Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture,/Transport, Building and Housing for further consultations.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cf. e.g. Ruchay, ZUR Sonderheft/2001, 117.Google Scholar
  31. Art. 13 para. 6, Art. 15 para. 1 WFD; cf. Faßbender, NVwZ 2001, 242.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cf. detailed account in Fassbender, loc. cit., 242, 244 ff.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    See note 29 above.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cf. e.g. Knopp, ZUR 6/2001, 369, also Ruchay, ZUR Sonderheft/2001, 115; Reinhardt, ZUR Sonderheft/2001, 124 ff.; Caspar, DÖV 2001, 535 ff. (on the implementation mechanisms).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ruchay, loc. cit., 117.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    See note 2 above.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    See note 24 above.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    See note 22 above.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Council Directive 96/21/EC of 24.09.1996 on the integrated avoidance and reduction of environmental pollution.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    For a detailed examination of the “Artikelgesetz” cf. e.g. Koch and Siebel-Huffmann, NVwZ 2001, 1081 ff. with refs.; for details on the Europeanization of immission control law see Jarass, in: Erbguth (ed.), Europäisierung des nationalen Umweltrechts: Stand and Perspektiven, 2001, 57 ff. with refs.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cf. for more detail Koch/Siebel-Huffmann, loc. cit., 1083; for criticism see Bohl, UVPreport 1/2001, 33 ff.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Koch/Siebel-Huffmann, NVwZ 2001, 1085 ff. with refs.; on EIA in the case of development plans see e.g. Gaentzsch, UPR 2001, 287 ff.; Krautzberger/Stemmler, UPR 2001, 241 ff. with refs.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Koch/Siebel-Huffmann, loc. cit., 1085 ff.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cf. Art. 3 c UVPGGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cf. Art. 3 b para. 2 UVPG; for criticism see Enders/Krings, DVB1. 2001, 1246 ff.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cf. Articles 3 a, c, 8, 9 a, 9 b UVPG.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cf. Articles 20 ff. UVPGGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Directive 91/156/EEC of 18.03. 1991, OJ L 78, p. 32.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Versteyl (note 2 above), p. 138 with refs.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Verdict of 09.09. 1999, EuZW 1999, 689 = NVwZ 1999, 1214.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Directive 75/439/EEC on the disposal of used oil of 16.06.1975, OJ L 194, p. 23 in the version of Directive 87/101/EEC of 22.12.1986, OJ L 42, p. 43, most recently amended through Directive 91/692/EEC of 23.12. 1991, OJ L 377, 31.12. 1991, p. 48.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cf. for details Versteyl, loc. cit., p. 140 ff. with refs.; the Fed. Council passed the regulation for amending the waste law rules for the disposal of waste oil on 20. 12. 2001.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Directive 99/31/EC of 26.04.1999 on waste landfills, OJ L 182, p. 1.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    See above.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cf. e.g. Articles 12 para. 3, 36 c, d KrW-/AbfG; see here Koch/Siebel-Huffmann, NVwZ 2001, 1087 f. with refs.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    The Directive in fact distinguishes between 4 different types of landfills: landfills for hazardous wastes, non-hazardous wastes, inert wastes, and underground landfills.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    TA Sonderabfall, TA Siedlungsabfall, AblagerungsVO resp.; Cf. Koch/Siebel-Huffmann, loc. cit., 1087, note 55 with ref. to Schnurer, Neues zum Deponierecht….Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    See its implementation in Articles 12 para. 3, 36 c para.1 KrW-/AbfG.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    See note 25 above.Google Scholar
  60. 6o.
    AltfahrzeugG, Fed. Ministry for the Env. draft law of 07.08. 2001, WA II 3.30114–6/4 and the Decision of the Fed. Govnt. on the draft law of 23.12.2001, BR-Drs. 1075 /01.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ordinance on the decommissioning and environmentally compatible disposal of disused vehicles of 04.07. 1997, promulgated as Art. 1 of the Ord. on the disposal of disused vehicles and the modification of road traffic law regulations of 04.07.1997, Fed. Law Gazette I, p. 1666.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    For a discussion of the Disused Vehicles Directive and its incorporation in national law and relevant constitutional questions cf. e.g. Berg/Nachtsheim, DVB1. 2001, 1103 ff. with refs.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cf. here Breuer (note 27 above), p. 98 ff.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    See especially Breuer, loc. cit., p. 100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lothar Knopp

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations