Access to Justice in European Union Law

The document analyzes the legal mechanisms for accessing justice in environmental matters within the EU, focusing on the Aarhus Convention and EU directives. It details the rights to access environmental information, public participation in decision-making, and the ability to challenge acts or omissions that affect the environment. The guide examines standing requirements for individuals and NGOs, the scope and standard of judicial review, and the necessity of effective remedies, including injunctive relief. It also addresses the specific challenges of challenging decisions made by EU institutions.

• The definition of 'environmental information' is broad and non-exhaustive, covering information in any material form, including paper, photographs, video, audio, and computer files.
• Public authorities must generally respond to requests for environmental information within one month, with a possible extension to two months for complex or voluminous requests.
• Information on emissions into the environment is subject to stricter disclosure rules; it cannot be refused based on exceptions such as commercial confidentiality, personal information, or the protection of the environment.
• Under the EIA Directive, the public concerned has the right to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, including screening decisions where an authority decides not to conduct an environmental impact assessment.
• For NGOs, standing is often 'de lege', meaning they are deemed to have a sufficient interest or impaired rights if they promote environmental protection and meet national legal requirements.
• National courts must not limit the scope of review for NGOs to only those arguments raised during prior administrative participation procedures, as this constitutes 'material preclusion' and is non-compliant with EU law.
• The standard of review requires that national courts assess the substantive merits of a decision rather than simply deferring to the public authority's discretion, particularly when protecting human health or the environment.
• Effective remedies for unlawful environmental decisions include the suspension, revocation, or annulment of permits, especially if a mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was absent or faulty.
• Injunctive relief and interim measures must be available to prevent irreversible environmental damage before a final court judgment is reached.
• Judicial procedures must not be 'prohibitively expensive'; this requires an assessment of both the objective cost of the proceedings and the subjective financial situation of the applicant.
• Access to justice for challenging acts of EU institutions is severely limited by the 'individual concern' and 'direct concern' criteria, which often exclude environmental NGOs acting in the public interest.
• The Aarhus Regulation's internal review mechanism is limited to 'administrative acts' of 'individual scope', which the ACCC finds fails to correctly implement the broader requirements of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention.

APA

ClientEarth (2021). Access to Justice in European Union Law. https://www.clientearth.org/media/fesgdu3u/clientearth_guide_2021_gb_bat.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Access to Justice in European Union Law. 2021. https://www.clientearth.org/media/fesgdu3u/clientearth_guide_2021_gb_bat.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=Access to Justice in European Union Law |date=2021 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/fesgdu3u/clientearth_guide_2021_gb_bat.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clientearth2021access, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Access to Justice in European Union Law}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2021}, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/fesgdu3u/clientearth_guide_2021_gb_bat.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }