Background paper analysing the Study and Report submitted by the Commission to the Council in relation to Council Decision (EU) 2018/881

The document synthesises a Commission Report and an external study on the EU's implementation of the Aarhus Convention. It identifies significant barriers for environmental NGOs seeking to challenge EU acts, particularly the restriction of internal reviews to acts of 'individual scope'. The analysis concludes that non-legislative guidance is insufficient and that only legislative options—specifically amending the Aarhus Regulation and introducing an Access to Justice Directive—can effectively remedy these shortcomings and ensure compliance with the Convention.

• Environmental NGOs face substantial barriers when attempting to challenge EU acts through direct annulment actions under Article 263(4) TFEU, as there is no recorded instance of an NGO being considered 'directly concerned' by a contested act.
• The internal review mechanism under the Aarhus Regulation is frequently inaccessible; 29 out of 43 requests filed by NGOs were deemed inadmissible, primarily because the Commission did not view the challenged acts as being of 'individual scope'.
• Preliminary references to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under Article 267 TFEU are underutilised due to high litigation costs in some jurisdictions, lack of standing at the national level, and a lack of familiarity among national judges.
• The current Aarhus Regulation is inconsistent with the Aarhus Convention because it limits review to acts of 'individual scope' and those 'under environmental law', whereas the Convention applies to acts of both general and individual scope and any act that runs counter to environmental requirements.
• The external study evaluated five policy options and concluded that non-legislative guidance (Option A) or maintaining the status quo (Option 0) would be ineffective or moderately negative, as they do not remove binding procedural obstacles or restrictive admissibility criteria.
• Legislative options (B, AB1, and AB2) are the only measures ranked as unequivocally positive for effectiveness and environmental impact. Specifically, removing the 'individual scope' requirement is identified as removing the 'main barrier' for NGOs.
• The adoption of a new Access to Justice Directive is recommended to ensure that standards for access to justice are harmonised across all EU Member States.

APA

ClientEarth (n.d.). Background paper analysing the Study and Report submitted by the Commission to the Council in relation to Council Decision (EU) 2018/881. https://www.clientearth.org/media/u35byasl/background-paper-analysing-the-study-and-report-submitted-by-the-commission-to-the-council-in-relation-to-council-decision-coll-en.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Background paper analysing the Study and Report submitted by the Commission to the Council in relation to Council Decision (EU) 2018/881. n.d. https://www.clientearth.org/media/u35byasl/background-paper-analysing-the-study-and-report-submitted-by-the-commission-to-the-council-in-relation-to-council-decision-coll-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=Background paper analysing the Study and Report submitted by the Commission to the Council in relation to Council Decision (EU) 2018/881 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/u35byasl/background-paper-analysing-the-study-and-report-submitted-by-the-commission-to-the-council-in-relation-to-council-decision-coll-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clientearthndbackground, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Background paper analysing the Study and Report submitted by the Commission to the Council in relation to Council Decision (EU) 2018/881}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/u35byasl/background-paper-analysing-the-study-and-report-submitted-by-the-commission-to-the-council-in-relation-to-council-decision-coll-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }