Addressing the EU’s non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention

ClientEarth and the European Environmental Bureau are calling on EU Environment Ministers to support the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee's finding that the EU lacks effective access to justice. They argue that the European Commission's proposal to reject these findings is legally weak, creates a double standard between EU institutions and Member States, and undermines the rule of law and environmental democracy in Europe and Central Asia.

• On 17 March 2017, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee determined that the European Union was in non-compliance with the Convention because of a "lack of effective access to justice at the level of the EU institutions."
• The European Commission proposed a Council Decision to reject the Compliance Committee's findings, which the authors argue would set a "dangerous precedent" and suggest the EU "considers itself above the rule of law."
• The authors contend that the Commission's claim that it is legally impossible to comply is invalid, noting that Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties prevents parties from using national laws as an excuse to avoid treaty obligations.
• The document asserts that compliance could be largely achieved by revising Regulation 1367/2006 (the Aarhus Regulation), as the primary barrier to justice is the "individual scope criteria applied to administrative acts."
• The authors reject the Commission's argument that Article 267 TFEU (preliminary rulings) provides sufficient access to justice, stating the process is "very remote from access to courts" and often inaccessible to NGOs due to costs and legal standing issues in Member States.
• The document highlights a double standard where the EU requires Member States to implement Aarhus Convention access to justice provisions while the EU institutions themselves "have resisted similar levels of access to justice in relation to themselves."
• The authors dispute the Commission's claim that broadening access to justice would lead to a flood of litigation, citing a DG ENV Impact Assessment which found that when Member States opened standing possibilities, "there was no significant increase in environmental court cases."

APA

Thornton, J., & Wates, J. (n.d.). Addressing the EU’s non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention. ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/media/vdtggfjp/second-letter-to-environment-ministers-of-eu-member-states-addressing-the-eu039s-non-compliance-with-the-aarhus-convention-coll-en.pdf

Chicago

Thornton, James, and Jeremy Wates. Addressing the EU’s non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention. ClientEarth, n.d. https://www.clientearth.org/media/vdtggfjp/second-letter-to-environment-ministers-of-eu-member-states-addressing-the-eu039s-non-compliance-with-the-aarhus-convention-coll-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Thornton |first1=James |last2=Wates |first2=Jeremy |title=Addressing the EU’s non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention |publisher=ClientEarth |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/vdtggfjp/second-letter-to-environment-ministers-of-eu-member-states-addressing-the-eu039s-non-compliance-with-the-aarhus-convention-coll-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{thorntonndaddressing, author = {Thornton, James and Wates, Jeremy}, title = {{Addressing the EU’s non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention}}, publisher = {ClientEarth}, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/vdtggfjp/second-letter-to-environment-ministers-of-eu-member-states-addressing-the-eu039s-non-compliance-with-the-aarhus-convention-coll-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }