SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental Law in the Courts of Europe: A Rough Sketch

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Environmental Law Before the Courts

  • 227 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examens how domestic judiciaries in Europe deal with environmental law. This produces a very varied picture. The way in which domestic courts in Europe engage with environmental law is influenced by various factors: different environmental conditions, pressures and awareness in the various subregions and countries, different legal systems, various degrees of development of environmental law, being a party or not to the Aarhus Convention, membership of the Council of Europe, the European Union (EU) or the European Economic Area (EEA). The intensity with which the concerned judiciaries dialogue with the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) or follow the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), as well as the organisation of the judiciary, the investment in it and the degree of specialisation are further factors of influence. It is argued that the legal anchoring of specialized environmental departments or judges in the relevant courts, as applied in some European countries, is a must.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 128.39
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
EUR 171.19
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/.

  2. 2.

    https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp.

  3. 3.

    United Nations Development Programme (2022).

  4. 4.

    Wolf et al. (2022), p. 206.

  5. 5.

    Sachs et al. (2022), p. 508.

  6. 6.

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/.

  7. 7.

    Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

  8. 8.

    Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein.

  9. 9.

    Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia.

  10. 10.

    The agency does not cover the following 4 Eastern European countries: Belarus, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine. Formally 4 small countries in Western and Southern Europe are not covered either: Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City.

  11. 11.

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biogeographical-regions-in-europe-2/map_2-1_biogeographical-regions/image_large.

  12. 12.

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/total-greenhouse-gas-emission-trends.

  13. 13.

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/arctic-and-baltic-sea-ice.

  14. 14.

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/drought-impact-on-ecosystems-in-europe.

  15. 15.

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/forest-fires-in-europe.

  16. 16.

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/conservation-status-of-habitats-under.

  17. 17.

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/conservation-status-of-species-under.

  18. 18.

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/emissions-of-the-main-air.

  19. 19.

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/exceedance-of-air-quality-standards.

  20. 20.

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/exposure-of-europe2019s-population-to.

  21. 21.

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/ecological-status-of-surface-waters.

  22. 22.

    European Commission (2019) Special Eurobarometer 51, Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment, Brussels, p. 144.

  23. 23.

    European Commission (2022) Standard Eurobarometer 96, Winter 2021–2022, Public opinion in the European Union First results Fieldwork: January–February 2022, Brussels, p. 24.

  24. 24.

    European Commission (2022) Special Eurobarometer 531, Autumn 2022, Key Challenges of our Times – Autumn 2022, Brussels, p. 44.

  25. 25.

    Council of Europe (2020), p. 138.

  26. 26.

    Lavrysen (2006a), pp. 82–83.

  27. 27.

    Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Spain. There are also Constitutional Courts in the unitary states Andorra, France, Luxembourg, and Malta.

  28. 28.

    Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey, Ukraine. There is also a Constitutional Court in Belarus and the Russian Federation.

  29. 29.

    Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, Switzerland.

  30. 30.

    Nicolatos et al. (2018), pp. 7–8.

  31. 31.

    https://www.aca-europe.eu/index.php/en/tour-d-europe-en.

  32. 32.

    https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/court-structure/.

  33. 33.

    https://www.courts.ie/judicial-review#:~:text=Judicial%20Review%20is%20a%20mechanism,Rules%20of%20the%20Superior%20Courts.

  34. 34.

    Lavrysen (2006a), pp. 84–85; EUFJE and Milieu Consulting (2019), pp. 34–35.

  35. 35.

    EUFJE and Milieu Consulting (2019).

  36. 36.

    Lavrysen (2006a), p. 85; EUFJE and Milieu Consulting (2019), p.35

  37. 37.

    Bezemek (2012), pp. 115–128.

  38. 38.

    Kelsen (1942), pp. 181–200.

  39. 39.

    Winter (2012), pp. 59–61; Lavrysen (2009a), pp. 96–97 and 99–100.

  40. 40.

    E.g. the Conseil Constitutionnel in France; https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/.

  41. 41.

    Lavrysen (2022), pp. 2–3.

  42. 42.

    Lavrysen (2008b), pp. 2; Lavrysen (2009a), pp. 103–105.

  43. 43.

    BVerfG, Order of the First Senate of 24 March 2021, 1 BvR 2656/18, paras. 1–270; https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/e/rs20210324_1bvr265618en.html.

  44. 44.

    Kotzé (2021), pp. 1423–1444; Winter (2022), pp. 209–221.

  45. 45.

    Aragão (2016), pp. 282–290; Bándi (2016), pp. 188–189; García-Ureta (2016), pp. 294–304; Iwanska and Baran (2016), pp. 248–260; Jancarova et al. (2016), pp. 117–126; Knez (2016), pp. 282–290; Mikosa (2016), pp. 212–217; Montini (2016), pp. 206–207; Lavrysen (2016), pp. 99–107; Ofak (2016), pp. 130–138; Ofak (2021), pp. 85–98; Winter (2016), pp. 4 and 174–184.

  46. 46.

    According to the UNEP’s initial study on Environmental Courts & Tribunals (Pring and Pring (2016), p. 120), the number of Environmental Courts has been exploding since 2000. In 2016, there were over 1200 Environmental Courts and Tribunals in 44 countries at the national or state/provincial level, with some 20 additional countries discussing or planning Environmental Courts & Tribunals. In the Updated Guide 2021 one has observed a steady growth since 2016 with the number of operational ECTs standing at 2116 in 67 countries (United Nations Environment Programme (2022), pp. 64–66).

  47. 47.

    Lavrysen (2006a), p. 86; Corn and Perilongo (2015), pp. 3–5.

  48. 48.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directive 2008/99/EC, Brussels, 15.12.2021, COM (2021) 861 final, p. 1.

  49. 49.

    Billiet (2016), p. 44; Billiet (2020) pp. 25–26.

  50. 50.

    Lavrysen (2006a), p. 86.

  51. 51.

    Lavrysen and Bouquelle (2021), pp. 6–7.

  52. 52.

    EUFJE and Milieu Consulting (2019), p. 40.

  53. 53.

    Darpö (2019), pp. 96–97; Sulyok et al. (2019), pp. 19–21.

  54. 54.

    Darpö (2019), pp. 97–98.

  55. 55.

    Lavrysen (2006a), p. 86.

  56. 56.

    Lavrysen and Bouquelle (2021), p. 1.

  57. 57.

    Lavrysen and Bouquelle (2021), p. 2; Pring and Pring (2016), pp. 81–85.

  58. 58.

    Lavrysen and Bouquelle (2021), pp. 4–6.

  59. 59.

    Lavrysen and Bouquelle (2021), pp. 8–10.

  60. 60.

    Eklund (2018), pp. 3–4.

  61. 61.

    Lavrysen and Bouquelle (2021), pp. 10–12.

  62. 62.

    Lavrysen and Bouquelle (2021), pp. 15–17.

  63. 63.

    Lavrysen and Bouquelle (2021), pp. 17–18.

  64. 64.

    Lavrysen and Bouquelle (2021), pp. 19–20.

  65. 65.

    Lavrysen and Bouquelle (2021), pp. 24–27.

  66. 66.

    Pring and Pring (2016), p. 27.

  67. 67.

    Lavrysen and Bouquelle (2021), pp. 22–24.

  68. 68.

    Schultz (2018), p. 5; Schultz (2019), pp. 118–135.

  69. 69.

    The UNECE region covers more than 47 million square kilometres. Its member States include the countries of Europe, but also countries in North America (Canada and United States), Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) and Western Asia (Israel) (https://unece.org/map-region). UNECE has 56 member States (https://unece.org/member-states-and-member-states-representatives).

  70. 70.

    The following countries which are not or only partially situated in Europe are a party to the Convention: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.

  71. 71.

    https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2022/CN.259.2022-Eng.pdf.

  72. 72.

    UNECE (2000), p. 12; UNECE (2004), p. 15; Redgwell (2007), pp. 156–157; Lavrysen (2010), p. 651.

  73. 73.

    UNECE (2000), p. 126; UNECE (2004), pp. 190–193.

  74. 74.

    UNECE (2004), pp. 193–196.

  75. 75.

    UNECE (2004), p. 197.

  76. 76.

    UNECE (2004), p. 200.

  77. 77.

    UNECE (2004), pp. 199–205; Lavrysen (2010), pp. 661–668.

  78. 78.

    L. Lavrysen (2008b), pp. 7–10.

  79. 79.

    Lavrysen (2014), pp. 7–11; European Commission (2017) Commission Notice on access to justice in environmental matters (2017/C 275/01), OJ C 275, 18 August 2017.

  80. 80.

    https://unece.org/environment-policy/public-participation/aarhus-convention/compliance-committee; Andrusevych and Kern (2016), p. 231.

  81. 81.

    Lavrysen (2014), pp. 12–13.

  82. 82.

    UNECE (2021) Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Seventh session, Geneva, 18–20 October 2021, Item 7 (a) of the provisional agenda, Procedures and mechanisms facilitating the implementation of the Convention: reporting mechanism Synthesis report on the status of implementation of the Convention, Report by the secretariat, ECE/MP.PP/2021/6.

  83. 83.

    https://www.echr.coe.int/.

  84. 84.

    https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf.

  85. 85.

    https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680a5da51.

  86. 86.

    Resolution of the European Court of Human Rights on the consequences of the cessation of membership of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe in light of Article 58 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 22 March 2022, https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Resolution_ECHR_cessation_membership_Russia_CoE_ENG.pdf

    The Court remains competent to deal with applications directed against the Russian Federation in relation to acts or omissions capable of constituting a violation of the Convention provided that they occurred until 16 September 2022.

  87. 87.

    ECtHR, Press Unit, Environment and the European Convention on Human Rights, Factsheet – Environment and the ECHR, https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/fs_environment_eng.pdf.

  88. 88.

    https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=214.

  89. 89.

    Caliceti et al. (2016), pp. 19–21.

  90. 90.

    Jans and Vedder (2012), p. 570; Kingston et al. (2017) p. 558; Van Calster and Reins (2017), p. 384; Thieffry (2021), p. 520.

  91. 91.

    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en.

  92. 92.

    (Macrory 2019)

  93. 93.

    https://www.efta.int/eea.

  94. 94.

    https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.

  95. 95.

    Court of Justice on the European Union (2022).

  96. 96.

    ECJ, 7 February 1985, Procureur de la République v Association de défense des brûleurs d’huiles usagées (ADBHU), Case 240/83, European Court Reports, 1985, p. 531.

  97. 97.

    Lavrysen (2006b), p. 447; Lavrysen (2008a), pp. 78–79.

  98. 98.

    Billiet and Meeus (2009), pp. 278–306

  99. 99.

    Krämer (2013), pp. 53–71.

  100. 100.

    Macrory et al. (2013), p. 37–50.

  101. 101.

    Moreno Molina (2013), pp. 99–103.

  102. 102.

    Lavrysen (2006b), P. 447; Lavrysen (2008a), pp. 78–79.

  103. 103.

    ECJ, Case C-387/97, Commission v. Greece; Case C-278/01, Commission v Spain.

  104. 104.

    Hedemann-Robinson (2017), p. 100.

  105. 105.

    Case C-76/08 R, Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2008, Commission v Malta and Case C-573/08 R, Order of the President of the Court of 10 December 2009, Commission v Italy (order to refrain from applying hunting rules in derogation of the Birds Directive); Case C-441/17 R, Order of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 November 201, Commission v Poland (order to cease immediately active forest management operations in Białowiesa Forest) and Case C-121/21R, Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 21 May 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (Mine de Turów) (order to cease immediately lignite mining activities at the Turów mine).

  106. 106.

    Case C-121/21R, Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 20 September 2021, Czech Republic v Poland (Mine de Turów).

  107. 107.

    Krämer (2003a), p. 86.

  108. 108.

    Krämer (2003b), p. 45.

  109. 109.

    Rodríguez Iglesias and Riechenberg (2002), p. 31

  110. 110.

    European Commission (2021), Monitoring the Application of European Union Law. 2021 Annual Report. General Overview, Brussels, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/general_overview_en.pdf.

  111. 111.

    Lavrysen (2009b), pp. 137–138.

  112. 112.

    Squintani and Annink (2018), pp. 147–170; Squintani and Kalisvaart (2020), pp. 931–961.

  113. 113.

    Situation on August 18th 2022.

  114. 114.

    Lavrysen (2009b), pp. 138–139.

  115. 115.

    Lavrysen (2009b), pp. 139–140.

  116. 116.

    Squintani and Kalisvaart (2021), pp. 1 and 29.

  117. 117.

    Lavrysen and Bouquelle (2022), pp. 556–565.

References

  • Andrusevych A, Kern S (2016) Case law of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (2004–2014), 3rd edn. RACSE, Lviv

    Google Scholar 

  • Aragão A (2016) Property and environmental protection in Poland. In: Winter G (ed) Property and environmental protection in Europe. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 282–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Bándi G (2016) Property and environmental protection in Hungary. In: Winter G (ed) Property and environmental protection in Europe. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 188–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezemek C (2012) A Kelsenian model of constitutional adjudication. The Austrian Constitutional Court. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 67:115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00708-012-0127-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billiet CM (2016) Sanctioning environmental crime (WG4). Prosecution and judicial practices. Interim report. ENPE, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Billiet CM (2020) Sanctioning environmental crime (WG4), Final report. Key observations and recommendations, 2016–2020. ENPE, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Billiet CM, Meeus R (2009) Europese verordeningen als wetgevingsvraagstuk: het voorbeeld van de milieuverordeningen. TVW 2009:278–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Caliceti E, Corn E, Penasa S, Perilongo GF, Pulice E (2016) Human Rights and the enforcement of environmental law. Summary report: analysis of the questionnaires, 2016 EUFJE conference, Bucharest. https://www.eufje.org/images/docConf/buc2016/sumbuc2016.pdf

  • Corn E, Perilongo GF (2015) The protection of the environment through criminal law. Summary report. Analyses of the questionnaires, Bolzano, 2015 EUFJE conference. https://www.eufje.org/images/docConf/bol2015/sum%20bol2015.pdf

  • Council of Europe (2020) European judicial systems. CEPEJ Evaluation report 2020 evaluation cycle (2018 data), Strasbourg. https://rm.coe.int/evaluation-report-part-1-english/16809fc058

  • Court of Justice on the European Union (2022) Annual report 2021 judicial activity, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Darpö J (2019) Understanding the nuts and bolts: scientific and technical knowledge in environmental litigation – national solutions, EU requirements and current challenges. In: Squintani L, Darpö J, Lavrysen L, Stoll PT (eds) Managing facts and feelings in environmental governance. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 82–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Eklund J (2018) The role of technical judges in the Finnish administrative courts. Presentation at the occasion of the 2018 EUFJE annual conference. https://eufje.org/images/docConf/so2018/Eklund_Sofia.pdf

  • EUFJE and Milieu Consulting (2019) Summary report. Questionnaire relating to the training and specialisation of magistrates in environmental law, p 58. https://www.eufje.org/images/docConf/so2018/EUFJE_Report_on_Training_and_Specialisation_in_Environmental_Law_2019.pdf

  • García-Ureta A (2016) Property and environmental protection in Spain. In: Winter G (ed) Property and environmental protection in Europe. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 294–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedemann-Robinson M (2017) Enforcement of European Union environmental law. Legal issues and challenges, Chapter 4 A. Routledge. https://static.routledge.com/9780415659598/Chapter_4A.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Iwanska B, Baran M (2016) Property and environmental protection in Poland. In: Winter G (ed) Property and environmental protection in Europe. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 248–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Jancarova I, Hanak J, Vomavka V (2016) Property and environmental protection in Czechia. In: Winter G (ed) Property and environmental protection in Europe. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 117–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Jans JH, Vedder HHB (2012) European environmental law: after Lisbon, 4th edn. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1942) Judicial review of legislation: a comparative study of the Austrian and the American Constitution. J Polit 4(2):182–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/2125770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingston S, Heyvaert V, ÄŒavoÅ¡ki A (2017) European environmental law. Cambridge University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Knez R (2016) Property and environmental protection in Slovenia. In: Winter G (ed) Property and environmental protection in Europe. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 282–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotzé LJ (2021) Neubauer et al. versus Germany: planetary climate litigation for the Anthropocene? Ger Law J 22:1423–1444. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2003a) The future role of the ECJ in the development of European environmental law. In: Jans JH (ed) The European convention and the future of European environmental law. The Avosetta series I. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2003b) EC environmental law, 5th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2013) Direct effect and consistent interpretation: strengths and weaknesses of the concepts. In: Jans JH, Macrory R, Moreno Molina AM (eds) National courts and EU environmental law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 53–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrysen L (2006a) The role of national judges in environmental law. In: Ormond T, Führ M, Barth R (eds) Environmental law and policy at the turn to the 21st century – Umweltrecht und -politik an der Wende zum 21. Jahrhundert. Gedenkschrift/Liber Amicorum Betty Gebers, Lexxion, Berlin, pp 81–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrysen L (2006b) The European Court of Justice and the implementation of environmental law. In: Macrory R (ed) Reflections on 30 years of EU environmental law. A high level of protection. The Avosetta series, nr. 7. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 417–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrysen L (2008a) The European Court of Justice and the implementation of environmental law. In: Postiglione A (ed) The role of the judiciary in the implementation and enforcement of environmental law. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 25–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrysen L (2008b) National judges and the convention – how the judiciary can further the implementation of the third pillar. The Aarhus Convention: how are its access to justice provisions being implemented? Conference Paper, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrysen L (2009a) Chapter 2: Belgium. In: Kotzé LJ, Paterson AR (eds) The role of the judiciary in environmental governance: comparative perspectives. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 85–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrysen L (2009b) Application of European environmental law by national courts. In: Bándi G (ed) The impact of ECJ jurisprudence on environmental law. Szent István Társalut, Budapest, pp 135–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrysen L (2010) The Aarhus Convention: between environmental protection and human rights. In: Liège, Strasbourg, Bruxelles: parcours des droits de l’homme, Liber Amicorum Michel Melchior. Anthemis, Limal, pp 647–672

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrysen L (2014) Access to justice in environmental matters: perspective from the European Union forum of judges for the environment. Global symposium on the environmental rule of law, proceedings, https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/4426506/file/4426507.pdf

  • Lavrysen L (2016) Property and environmental protection in Belgium. In: Winter G (ed) Property and environmental protection in Europe. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 99–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrysen L (2022) Environmental cases before the Belgian Constitutional Court, Workshop organised by the Constitutional Council, Courts faced with new public health, technological and environmental challenges. Conference of the heads of the Supreme Courts of the European Union Member States, Paris. https://www.const-court.be/public/stet/n/stet-2022-001n.pdf; https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/actualites/conference-des-chefs-des-cours-supremes-des-etats-membres-de-l-union-europeenne-le-lundi-21-fevrier

  • Lavrysen L, Bouquelle F (2021) ECT regional report Europe, 2021. Ghent University

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrysen L, Bouquelle F (2022) Waarom zijn milieurechters noodzakelijk? Ars Aequi 2022:556–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Macrory R (2019) Environmental law in the United Kingdom post Brexit. ERA Forum 2019(19):643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-018-0531-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macrory R, Madner V, Mayr S (2013) Consistent interpretation of EU environmental law. In: Jans JH, Macrory R, Moreno Molina AM (eds) National courts and EU environmental law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 37–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikosa Z (2016) Property and environmental protection in Latvia. In: Winter G (ed) Property and environmental protection in Europe. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 212–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Montini M (2016) Property and environmental protection in Italy. In: Winter G (ed) Property and environmental protection in Europe. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 206–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno Molina AM (2013) Direct effect and state liability. In: Jans JH, Macrory R, Moreno Molina AM (eds) National courts and EU environmental law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 53–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolatos MM, Parparinos L, Hadjiprodromou M (2018) Administrative justice in Europe. The Supreme Court of Cyprus. https://www.aca-europe.eu/en/eurtour/i/countries/cyprus/cyprus_en.pdf

  • Ofak L (2016) Property and environmental protection in Croatia. In: Winter G (ed) Property and environmental protection in Europe. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 130–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofak L (2021) The approach of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia towards the protection of the right to a healthy environment. J Agric Environ Law 16(31):85–98. https://doi.org/10.21029/JAEL.2021.31.85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pring G, Pring C (2016) Environmental courts & tribunals. A guide for policy makers. UNEP, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Redgwell C (2007) Access to environmental justice. In: Francioni F (ed) Access to justice as a human right. Oxford University Press, pp 153–175

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Iglesias GC, Riechenberg K (2002) Sustainable development in the European Union – environmental law before the European Court of Justice, Contribution to the global judges symposium. UNEP, Johannesburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs JD, Lafortune G, Kroll Ch, Fuller G, Woelm F (2022) From crisis to sustainable development: the SDGs as roadmap to 2030 and beyond. Sustainable development report 2022. Cambridge University Press. https://s3.amazonaws.com/sustainabledevelopment.report/2022/2022-sustainable-development-report.pdf

  • Schultz M (2018) The role of the technical judge in Sweden. EUFJE annual conference 2018, presentation, https://eufje.org/images/docConf/so2018/so2018_presMS.pdf

  • Schultz M (2019) Scientific evidence in Swedish courts: the use of technical judges for better integration of scientific data in environmental decision-making. In: Squintani L, Darpö J, Lavrysen L, Stoll PT (eds) Managing facts and feelings in environmental governance. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 118–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Squintani L, Annink D (2018) Judicial cooperation in environmental matters: map** national courts’ behaviour in follow-up cases. J Eur Environ Plan Law 15(2):147–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squintani L, Kalisvaart S (2020) Environmental democracy and judicial cooperation in environmental matters: map** national courts behaviour in follow-up cases. Eur Pap 5(2):931. https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squintani L, Kalisvaart S (2021) Report on judicial cooperation in follow up judgments in environmental matters. 2021 EUFJE annual conference, cooperation between CJEU and national judges in environmental cases, pp 1 and 29. https://www.eufje.org/images/docConf/visio2021/Report_based_on_EUFJE_questionnaires_on_follow-up_judgments_-_Definitive_06-11-2021.pdf

  • Sulyok K, Bögös F, Paloniitty TM, Eliantonio M (2019) The role of science in environmental adjudication summary report: analysis of the questionnaire, 2019 EUFJE conference. https://www.eufje.org/images/docConf/hel2019/Summary_report_Questionnaire_EUFJE2019.pdf

  • Thieffry P (2021) Handbook of European environmental law, 2nd edn. Larcier, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • UNECE (2000) The Aarhus Convention: an implementation guide. United Nations, New York and Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • UNECE (2004) The Aarhus Convention: an implementation guide. 2nd ed, United Nations, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Programme (2022) Human development report 2021–22. Uncertain Times. Unsettled lives: sha** our future in a transforming world the next frontier. Human Development and the Anthropocene, New York. https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/global-report-document/hdr2021-22pdf_1.pdf

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme (2022) Environmental courts and tribunals-2021: a guide for policymakers. UNEP, Nairobi. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/40309

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Calster G, Reins L (2017) EU environmental law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham-Northampton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Winter G (2012) Environmental governance in Germany. In: Alberton M, Palermo F (eds) Environmental protection in multi-layered systems: comparative lessons from the water sector. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter G (2016) Property and environmental protection in Germany. In: Winter G (ed) Property and environmental protection in Europe. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 174–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter G (2022) The intergenerational effect of fundamental rights: a contribution of the German federal constitutional court to climate protection. J Environ Law 34(1):209–211. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqab035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf MJ, Emerson JW, Esty DC, de Sherbinin A, Wendling ZA et al (2022) 2022 environmental performance index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, New Haven. https://epi.yale.edu/

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Constitutional Court of Belgium, Ghent, Belgium

    Luc Lavrysen

Authors
  1. Luc Lavrysen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luc Lavrysen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Italian Ministry of Culture, Rome, Italy

    Giovanni Antonelli

  2. Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Michael Gerrard

  3. Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

    Sara Colangelo

  4. Consiglio die Stato, Rome, Italy

    Giancarlo Montedoro

  5. Tar Campania, Naples, Italy

    Maurizio Santise

  6. Constitutional Court of Belgium, Ghent, Belgium

    Luc Lavrysen

  7. Department of Political Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Maria Vittoria Ferroni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lavrysen, L. (2023). Environmental Law in the Courts of Europe: A Rough Sketch. In: Antonelli, G., et al. Environmental Law Before the Courts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41527-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41527-2_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41526-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41527-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation