Search

The aim of this article is to consider recent developments in the European Union's legal policy on combating global forestation. Specifically, it focuses on the significance of the European Commission's recent legislative proposal of November 2021 to minimize the EU's contribution to deforestation and forest degradation (DFD) worldwide by banning the placement on the internal market or export from the Union of certain commodities that have been produced on land that has been subject to deforestation or from wood harvested from forests inducing forest degradation (referred to in this article as the draft deforestation-free product regulation (DFPR)). Whilst for a number of years the EU's approach towards addressing global forest depletion has been focused on combating the trade in illegally harvested timber products and more lately on biofuel sourcing for renewable energy policy purposes, the recent launch of the DFPR proposal reflects a growing awareness by the EU that its contribution to the environmental problem of DFD is more profound and far-reaching than previously recognized. EU consumption of a range of commodities constitutes an important DFD driver, through which large areas of natural forest have been depleted at an unsustainable rate for the purposes of agricultural conversion and production, with severe consequent environmental and social costs. The article explores the content and implications of this new legislative initiative, for the Union and more broadly for the international community. Given the continued absence of a global environmental agreement addressing DFD, the stakes for the Union are high economically, politically and to some extent legally for it deciding unilaterally to introduce regulatory controls on a range of commodities to address its complicity in consumption involving embedded deforestation. One thing is clear, though, namely that the EU is not afraid to act as a legislative pioneer on the international scene, in which the Union's environmental values may be seen as trumping short-term economic considerations of international competitiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impact of the infringement action under Article 228(2) of the European Community (EC) Treaty in assisting in the enforcement of EC environmental law is considered. Evidence suggests that in many instances Member States are not deterred continuing to delay or obstruct the correct implementation of EC environmental obligations into national law and practice and hence questions are raised whether the penalty infringement procedure under Article 228(2) has proved itself fit for the purpose.

The aim of this article is to track through and offer some reflections on the efforts by the European Union (EU) to ensure that EU law adequately implements the access to environmental justice obligations set down in the 1998 Aarhus Convention (AC) with respect to activities carried out by its supranational institutions and other Union bodies. For a number of years the EU has struggled to ensure its legal framework is in conformity with the Convention's requirements concerning access to justice, not least in the wake of adverse findings expressed by the Convention's Compliance Committee responding to complaints from members of the public. However, matters appear to have improved significantly in October 2021 with the adoption of EU Regulation 2021/1767 amending the Union's legislative rules on an internal review mechanism of EU administrative acts or omissions alleged by members of the public to contravene EU environmental law (namely the 'Aarhus Regulation' 1367/2006). Whilst this article considers that most of the key issues relating to noncompliance have now been addressed satisfactorily, much of the credit for this ultimately lies with the European Parliament and Council of the EU as primary co-legislators rather than other key Union institutional actors such as the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). At the same time, this recent legislative innovation has not enabled the EU to reach its destination of achieving full compliance with the Convention over access to environmental justice, with some important administrative activities affecting the environment still remaining exempt from the Union's internal review system such as EU decisions on state aid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this short article is to provide a brief overview and reflections on the European Union's relatively recent introduction of a biennial Environmental Implementation Review (EIR) cycle as part of its activities in monitoring EU Member States' (MS) implementation of Union environmental law and policy. The EIR reflects an increased level of interest on the part of the Union in seeking to identify ways in which MS may improve upon their track records in implementing EU environmental legislative requirements at national level. Notably, it envisages a more intense form of engagement and dialogue on the part of the European Commission with MS authorities on identifying strengths and weaknesses in terms of individual MS performance as well as identifying common challenges at national level. The article assesses what key outcomes may have emerged thus far with the two EIR cycles that have been completed and how the EIR relates to the other principal supranational supervisory tool used by the EU for the purpose overseeing compliance with the EU environmental acquis, namely the use of law enforcement action via infringement proceedings. Ultimately, the article posits the view that the tools of EIR and law enforcement may be best seen to be in a complementary and mutually supportive relationship, each needing the other to be able to make a sufficient impression and impact on MS in terms of inducing them to address the subject of implementation with the degree of importance and urgency it deserves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article mentions several European Union (EU) environmental legislative proposals as of November 2014 including the EU engagement with the Lima Climate Conference, carbon dioxide emissions for ships, and emission from medium combustion plants.

The article focuses on extent to which the European Union (EU) has fallen from starting its promises related to access environmental justice concluded in Aarhus Convention. It states that addition of access to justice security in the access to environmental information (AEI) directive follows directly from requirements in the Aarhus Convention. It mentions that possibilities for civil society to become more involved in the application of EU environmental legislation have improved.

The article discusses the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's (UNECE) Convention which provides access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, known as the Aarhus Convention. It mentions the implementation of obligations on the promotion of access to environmental justice in the Aarhus Convention. Also it adds the shortcomings in European Union legislative implementation which resulted in legal disputes.

The article reports the survey conducted as of 2013 by the European Union (EU) related to the environmental liability. It focuses on several key policy developments noticed while conducting the quantitative surveys and also shows progress of the survey. Topics discussed include various surveys conducted by the EU related to resource efficiency, food production and consumption and urban waste water management.

The article discusses the role of the European Union (UN) in enforcing multilateral international environmental agreements (IEAs). It notes the influence of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) on expanding of the capability of the environmental policy of the European Community. The author further highlights the European Commission's use if infringement proceedings to enforce IEAs.

The article presents information on the recent developments regarding the various fields under the environmental law of European Union. The fields include waste, water, chemicals and the soil quality in the areas under the European Union. Information on the issues regarding the law enforcement in these various fields under the environmental law is also presented.

The article presents information on a survey conducted in European Union (EU) based on environmental liabilities. A focus is on the outcomes of the United Nations climate conference held in Durban and the new rules proposed by the EU for monitoring the emission of green house gases. The initiatives based on the protection of natural sites and endangered species are discussed along with the strategies of biodiversity, waste water treatment and issues related to law enforcement.

It would not be an overstatement to suggest that the principle of equality constitutes a cornerstone of European Community Law. The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality, enshrined in Article 6 of the EC Treaty, is a theme that runs through Community Law. It has been central to the realization of Single Market dream, in eliminating inter-state barriers to develop greater free movement of the four key factors of production, namely goods, persons, services and capital within the Union. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has even developed a general unwritten principle of equality, binding on all Community legislative action. However, beneath this appearance of uniformity of approach there lies, paradoxically, a marked difference in relation to the prohibition of hidden forms of unequal treatment (or indirect discrimination) in EC Law. Here, the ECJ has been unable to sustain the unifying quality of the equality principle. It has singularly failed to establish a comprehensive legal test relating to the concept of indirect discrimination. Instead, the case law has diverged considerably, the ECJ apparently willing to develop principles on a sectoral as opposed to a generic basis. This paper aims to analyse and expose the inconsistency of treatment by the ECJ in its appraisal of indirect discrimination in relation to the following key economic sectors: free movement of goods, services and workers and gender equality in employment. Behind the presentation of uniformity of approach, the ECJ has established subtle but significant legal distinctions which have had profound economic consequences for litigants and markets alike. Such a state of affairs raises serious questions about the universality and impartiality of the application of the principle of equality m the European Community Law context, not least because hidden as opposed to more express forms of discrimination tend now to take on a more prevalent and significant role in the Single Market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]