Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Application of the Aarhus Convention in Southeast Europe

  • Chapter
Judicial Application of International Law in Southeast Europe

  • 382 Accesses

Abstract

Our survey showed that there have not been many examples of the direct application of the Aarhus Convention by the courts in SEE countries. In situations where the Aarhus Convention could be applied, the courts would rather apply the rules of domestic legislation that are relevant to the merits of the case, or the provisions of the EU directives that regulate access to information, public participation in decisionmaking and access to justice in environmental matters. In addition, in many environmental cases the Aarhus Convention will not be applicable, since it does not contain any substantive rules regarding the right to a healthy environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2013a), p. 1.

  2. 2.

    Ibid, p. 31.

  3. 3.

    For a discussion on substantive and procedural environmental rights, see e.g. Pallemaerts (2004); UNEP. http://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/?q=en/system/files/human_rights_env_report.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2013; Pedersen (2008), pp. 73–111. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1122289. Accessed 30 June 2013; May and Daly (2009); Widener Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09–35. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1479849. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  4. 4.

    UN Treaty Collection. Status of ratification. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-13&chapter=27&lang=en. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  5. 5.

    UN Treaty Collection. Status of ratification. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-13-a&chapter=27&lang=en. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  6. 6.

    Wates (2011), p. 14.

  7. 7.

    UN Treaty Collection. Status of ratification. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-13-b&chapter=27&lang=en. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  8. 8.

    See similar: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2013a), p. 65.

  9. 9.

    Council Decision 2005/370/EC, OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1.

  10. 10.

    See Article 116(1) of the Albanian Constitution (Law No. 8417 as modified by Law No. 9675 and by Law No. 9904), decision U 5/09 of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article 141 of the Croatian Constitution (Narodne novine (NN) No. 85/10—consolidated text), Article 9 of the Montenegrin Constitution (Službeni list CG no. 1/07), Article 8 of the Slovenian Constitution (Uradni list RS no. 33/1991 (as am.)) and Article 194 of the Serbian Constitution (Službeni glasnik RS no. 98/06).

  11. 11.

    Risteska and Miševa (2013).

  12. 12.

    Article 131 of the Albanian Constitution, Article VI(3) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article 149 of the Montenegrin Constitution, Article 160 of the Slovenian Constitution and Article 167 of the Serbian Constitution. The Croatian Constitution does not explicitly empower the Constitutional Court to review the conformity of an act with international treaties; however, the Constitutional Court has accepted the competence of reviewing the conformity of domestic acts with international treaties which have been ratified in Croatia (see e.g. U-I-745/1999 (NN No. 112/00)).

  13. 13.

    The Macedonian Constitutional Court is empowered to review the conformity of laws with the Constitution and the conformity of collective agreements and other regulations with the Constitution and laws (see Article 110 of the Macedonian Constitution). The Macedonian Constitution does not expressly empower the Constitutional Court to review the conformity of laws with international treaties. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court has the authority to repeal the provisions of domestic laws that are contrary to the ratified international agreements. (Miševa K. Email correspondence with the author (1 July 2013). Many thanks to Kristina Miševa for her explanation of the competence of the Macedonian Constitutional Court.)

  14. 14.

    See Article 38(1) of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (NN No. 49/02—consolidated text), Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Macedonia (Службен весник на РМ No. 70/1992), Article 150(1) of the Montenegrin Constitution and Article 168(2) of the Serbian Constitution.

  15. 15.

    Article 145(2) of the Albanian Constitution reads as follows: ‘If judges believe that a law is unconstitutional, they do not apply it. In this case, they suspend the proceedings and send the question to the Constitutional Court. Decisions of the Constitutional Court are binding on all courts’.

  16. 16.

    Sali S. Email correspondence with the author (26 June 2013). Many thanks to Semir Sali and Gentian Zyberi for their explanation of the right of individuals to submit an initiative before the Albanian Constitutional Court.

  17. 17.

    Article VI/3(c) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  18. 18.

    See Article 24 of the Constitutional Court Act (Uradni list RS No. 64/07—consolidated text).

  19. 19.

    Decision of the Slovenian Constitutional Court, U-I-386/06-32, paras 3 and 4.

  20. 20.

    Uradni list RS No. 56/99, 31/200—popr., 119/02, 41/04 in 96/04—ur. p. b.

  21. 21.

    Decision of the Slovenian Constitutional Court, supra note 19, para 9.

  22. 22.

    Article 153(2) of the Slovenian Constitution prescribes that ‘Laws must be in conformity with generally accepted principles of international law and with valid treaties ratified by the National Assembly, whereas regulations and other general legal acts must also be in conformity with other ratified treaties’.

  23. 23.

    Decision of the Slovenian Constitutional Court, supra note 19, para 11.

  24. 24.

    Ibid, paras 12–14.

  25. 25.

    See Article 122(1) of the Albanian Constitution; Article 118(3) of the Croatian Constitution; Article 98(2) of the Macedonian Constitution; Article 9 of the Montenegrin Constitution; Article 16(2) of the Serbian Constitution; Article 8(2) of the Slovenian Constitution.

  26. 26.

    See the chapter of Meškić and Samardžić in this book.

  27. 27.

    Omejec (2009), pp. 7–8. http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-JU(2009)035-e. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  28. 28.

    Ibid, p. 8.

  29. 29.

    For the interpretation of the term ‘within the framework of its national legislation’ see United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2013a), pp. 32–34.

  30. 30.

    ECE/MP.PP/2005/13, 11 March 2005. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2005/pp/ece/ece.mp.pp.2005.13.e.pdf, paras 36–38. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  31. 31.

    Ibid, para 36.

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    For the restrictive case law of the French State Council (Conseil d’Etat) in providing direct effect of the norms of international treaties, see Betaille (2009), pp. 63–73. For a similar restrictive case law of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní spoud), see Passer (2001), pp. 41–48.

  34. 34.

    For the same opinion, see Černý (2009).

  35. 35.

    For judicial application of the doctrines of direct effect and consistent interpretation in the field of EU environmental law, see Jans et al. (2013).

  36. 36.

    See Article 145(2) of the Albanian Constitution, Article VI.3(c) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article 44 of the Act on Constitutional Court of Montenegro (Sl. list Crne Gore No. 64/08) and Article 63 of the Serbian Act on the Constitutional Court (Sl. glasnik RS No. 109/2007, 99/2011 and 18/2013). To my knowledge, the Rules of Procedure of the Macedonian Constitutional Court do not contain similar provisions.

  37. 37.

    To my knowledge, and also based on the information received from other authors of this book, no cases have been reported in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. There have been very few cases in Slovenia and Croatia where the Aarhus Convention was mentioned in judgments but not directly applied (in Slovenia: Judgment of the Administrative Court, I U 2/2010; in Croatia: Judgment of the Administrative Court, Us-7555/2004-5, Judgment of the Misdemeanour Court in Zagreb, VI-G-2047-09).

  38. 38.

    Examples where the court found that the Aarhus convention was not relevant for the merits of the case were found in Slovenia (Judgment of the Administrative Court, I U 2/2010), and Macedonia (Citizens of Veles v. Republic of Macedonia). The Slovenian case concerned the issuance of an environmental permit. In this case, the court determined that the ‘…Aarhus Convention invoked by the plaintiff does not contain provisions that can be directly taken into account in the procedure…’. In the case before the Macedonian courts, the basic court in Veles and the appellate court in Skopje applied the EC Directive 2004/35/EC and not the provisions of the Aarhus Convention.

  39. 39.

    This chapter contains parts of my article: Ofak (2012), pp. 16–17.

  40. 40.

    Krämer (2011), p. 34.

  41. 41.

    Report by the Compliance Committee, Addendum, Compliance by Romania with its obligations under the Convention, ECE/MP.PP/2008/5/Add.7, 16 April 2008, para 30.

  42. 42.

    United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2013a), p. 75.

  43. 43.

    Some examples are: ‘In January 2013, the Judicial Training Institute organized a training seminar for judges on implementing the Access to Justice Pillar of Aarhus Convention. It is a part of a program Capacity Building to Put the Aarhus Convention into Action and Support Development of PRTR Systems in Serbia’. (Drenovak Ivanović and Lukić (2013)); in Macedonia, the Academy for Judges offers a course on criminal cases and misdemeanours against the environment and nature that provides an introduction to the provisions of the Aarhus Convention (Risteska and Miševa 2013); in 2013 education for judges on the Aarhus Convention is also being provided in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Meškić and Samardžić 2013); in Croatia, the Judicial Academy, in cooperation with non-governmental organisations Green Istria and GONG, organised training for judges on the Aarhus Convention in September 2011.

  44. 44.

    http://www.unece.org/env/pp/documents/mop1/ece.mp.pp.2.add.8.e.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  45. 45.

    For ACCC case law and procedures, see, for instance: Jendrośka (2011), pp. 91–147; Andrusevych et al. (2011); Koester (2007), pp. 83–96.

  46. 46.

    Report to the second Meeting of the Parties, supra note 30, para 13.

  47. 47.

    See United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2013b).

  48. 48.

    Koester (2007), p. 87.

  49. 49.

    United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2013b), p. 7.

  50. 50.

    Two of those procedures were stopped (dismissed). One case regarding Albania (ACCC/C/2008/25) was stopped due to lack of information and because the issues resembled those related to the Vlora Power Plant for which the Committee had reached its findings. The other case concerning Croatia (ACCC/C/2013/80) was also dismissed due to a lack of corroborating information.

  51. 51.

    Report of the Compliance Committee on its sixteenth meeting. Addendum. Findings and recommendations with regards to compliance by Albania, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2007/4/Add.1, 31 July 2007, para 92. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2007/pp/ECE_MP.PP_C_1_2007_4_Add_1.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  52. 52.

    Decision III/6a of the Meeting of the Parties on compliance by Albania with its obligations under the Convention, ECE/MP.PP/2008/2/Add.9, 26 September 2008. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/MoP3decisions/Albania/ece_mp_pp_2008_2_add_9_e_Albania%20ODS.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  53. 53.

    Report of the Compliance Committee on its 31st meeting. Addendum. Compliance by Albania with its obligations under the Convention, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2011/2/Add.1, April 2011, para. 22. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/CC-31/ece_mp.pp_c.1_2011_2_add.1_adv%20edited.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  54. 54.

    CEE Bankwatch Network, Ombla hydropower project under fire in the European Parliament. http://bankwatch.org/bwmail/52/ombla-hydropower-project-under-fire-european-parliament. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  55. 55.

    Zelena akcija/Friends of the Earth Croatia, Complaint to the EBRD’s Project Complaint Mechanism regarding the Ombla hydropower project, Croatia. http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/integrity/Ombla_complaint_17.11.2011.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  56. 56.

    EBRD’s response to the civil society organisation letter. http://bankwatch.org/sites/default/files/response-EBRD-Ombla-04Jun2013.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  57. 57.

    Risteska and Miševa (2013).

  58. 58.

    CEE Bankwatch Network, the Boskov Most hydropower plant (Macedonia) and the EBRD’s Project Complaint Mechanism. http://bankwatch.org/sites/default/files/briefing-EBRD-BoskovMost-10May2013.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2013.

  59. 59.

    Eko-svest, Complaint to the EBRD’s Project Complaint Mechanism regarding the Boskov Most hydropower project, Macedonia. http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/integrity/Boskov_complaint_7.11.2011.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2013.

References

  • Andrusevych A, Alge T, Konrad C (eds) (2011) Case law of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (2004–2011), 2nd edn. RACSE, Lviv

    Google Scholar 

  • Betaille J (2009) The direct effect of the Aarhus Convention as seen by the French Conseil d’Etat. Environ Law Netw Int Rev 2:63–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Černý P (2009) Practical application of Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention in some EU countries – comparative remarks. In: Environmental Law Service et al (eds) Selected problems of the Aarhus Convention application based on experience and court practice of NGOs in 7 EU countries. http://www.justiceandenvironment.org/_files/file/2009/09/access_to_justice_collection.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2013

  • Drenovak Ivanović M, Lukić M (2013) Questionnaire – judicial application of the Aarhus convention in Serbia

    Google Scholar 

  • Jans JH, Marcory R, Moreno Molina A-M (eds) (2013) National courts and EU environmental law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Jendrośka J (2011) Public participation in environmental decision-making. Interactions between the Convention and EU law and other key legal issues in its implementation in the light of the opinions of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. In: Pallemaerts M (ed) The Aarhus Convention at ten: interactions and tensions between conventional international law and EU environmental law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 91–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Koester V (2007) The compliance committee of the Aarhus convention: an overview of procedures and jurisprudence. Environ Policy Law 37(2–3):83–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2011) The application of the Aarhus Convention in the European Union. In: Radojčić D (ed) Enforcement of the Aarhus Convention in the Adriatic region countries. Zelena Istra, Pula, p 34

    Google Scholar 

  • May J, Daly E (2009) Vindicating fundamental environmental rights: judicial acceptance of constitutionally entrenched environmental rights. Or Rev Int Law 11:365–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Meškić Z, Samardžić D (2013) Questionnaire – judicial application of the Aarhus Convention in Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofak L (2012) Public participation in decisions on specific activities in environmental matters in Croatia. Environ Law Netw Int Rev 1:16–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Omejec J (2009) Legal framework and case-law of the Constitutional Court of Croatia in deciding on the conformity of laws with international treaties, pp 7–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallemaerts M (2004) Proceduralizing environmental rights: the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters in a human rights context. In: Perrez FX et al (eds) Human rights and the environment: proceedings of a Geneva environment network roundtable, pp 14–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Passer JM (2001) European perspectives on access to justice in environmental matters. In: Radojčić D (ed) Enforcement of the Aarhus Convention in the Adriatic region countries. Zelena Istra, Pula, pp 41–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen OW (2008) European environmental human rights and environmental rights: a long time coming? Georgetown Int Environ Law Rev 21(1):73–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Risteska M, Miševa K (2013) Questionnaire – judicial application of Aarhus Convention in Macedonia (answers to the questionnaire on file with the author)

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2013a) The Aarhus Convention: an implementation guide. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/ppdm/Aarhus_Implementation_Guide_second_edition_-_text_only.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2013

  • United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2013b) Guidance document on the Aarhus Convention compliance mechanism. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/CC_GuidanceDocument.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2013

  • Wates J (2011) An introduction to the Aarhus Convention. In: Radojčić D (ed) Enforcement of the Aarhus Convention in the Adriatic region countries. Zelena Istra, Pula, p 14

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Cirilometodska 4, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

    Lana Ofak

Authors
  1. Lana Ofak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lana Ofak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Judge, Court of Justice of the European Union, Luxembourg, European Union

    Siniša Rodin

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Tamara Perišin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ofak, L. (2015). Application of the Aarhus Convention in Southeast Europe. In: Rodin, S., Perišin, T. (eds) Judicial Application of International Law in Southeast Europe. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46384-0_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation