Internal review procedure: the General Court places further restrictions on access to justice

The General Court's decision in Case T-108/17 ClientEarth v Commission reinforces restrictive barriers for NGOs seeking to challenge EU environmental decisions. The court ruled that the internal review procedure under Article 12 of the Aarhus Regulation cannot result in the annulment of the underlying administrative act, only the decision on the review request itself. Furthermore, the court limited the admissibility of arguments to those explicitly raised in the initial request, preventing NGOs from adapting their claims based on the Commission's response. ClientEarth argues these restrictions violate the Aarhus Convention by denying an effective remedy for illegal EU acts.

• The General Court ruled that the internal review procedure under Article 12 of the Aarhus Regulation cannot be used to annul the original administrative act that was the subject of the review request, such as an authorisation.
• The court established that arguments regarding deficiencies in an authorisation only affect the legal action if the Commission explicitly endorsed those elements in its decision on the internal review request, allowing the Commission to avoid court scrutiny by remaining silent on identified errors.
• The General Court restricted the admissibility of pleas and arguments to those already presented in the initial internal review request, meaning NGOs cannot amplify or adapt their arguments to respond to the Commission's position.
• The court confirmed that NGOs must provide facts, evidence, or legal arguments that raise 'serious doubts' about the assessment made by the EU body, though in some instances the court appeared to require definitive proof that the legal standard for authorisation was not met.
• ClientEarth asserts that the current internal review procedure, given the inability to annul authorisations and the restrictive admissibility criteria, fails to comply with Articles 9(3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention.

APA

ClientEarth (2019). Internal review procedure: the General Court places further restrictions on access to justice. https://www.clientearth.org/projects/access-to-justice-for-a-greener-europe/updates-annual-newsletters/internal-review-procedure-the-general-court-places-further-restrictions-on-access-to-justice/

Chicago

ClientEarth. Internal review procedure: the General Court places further restrictions on access to justice. 2019. https://www.clientearth.org/projects/access-to-justice-for-a-greener-europe/updates-annual-newsletters/internal-review-procedure-the-general-court-places-further-restrictions-on-access-to-justice/.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=Internal review procedure: the General Court places further restrictions on access to justice |date=9 July 2019 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/projects/access-to-justice-for-a-greener-europe/updates-annual-newsletters/internal-review-procedure-the-general-court-places-further-restrictions-on-access-to-justice/ |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clientearth2019internal, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Internal review procedure: the General Court places further restrictions on access to justice}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2019}, month = jul, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/projects/access-to-justice-for-a-greener-europe/updates-annual-newsletters/internal-review-procedure-the-general-court-places-further-restrictions-on-access-to-justice/}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }