Public participation in decisions on specific activities in environmental matters in Croatia

elni Review ◽  
2012 ◽  
pp. 13-19
Author(s):  
Lana Ofak
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Positive Outcome ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Aarhus Convention ◽  
Specific Activities ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Croatia finished accession negotiations with the EU in June 2011. The Accession Treaty was signed on 9 December 2011. The EU accession referendum in Croatia was held in January 2012 with a positive outcome. 66.27% of Croatian citizens voted in favour of Croatian accession to the European Union and 33.13% of votes were against the accession. Following ratification of the Accession Treaty by the 27 EU member states, accession of Croatia to the EU is expected to take place on 1 July 2013. In the 2011 Progress Report, European Commission stated that there has been progress in the area of environment. Overall, Croatia’s environmentorientated preparations are nearing completion in terms of both alignment and implementation of the relevant legislation. However, implementation of the horizontal acquis, and in particular effective public participation and access to justice in environmental matters, need to be improved. The purpose of this article is twofold. Firstly, it provides a general overview of the legal framework for public participation in decisions on specific activities in Croatia, which is intended to implement provisions of Art. 6 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (hereinafter: the Aarhus Convention or Convention). Implementation of Art. 7 and 8 of the Aarhus Convention are not discussed. Secondly, specific problems in exercising the right to participate in environmental impact assessment procedures in Croatia are analysed. It is shown that there are cases of non-compliance with the provisions of Art. 6 of the Aarhus Convention.

The Aarhus Convention in operation: EEB Survey Initial Results

elni Review ◽  
2007 ◽  
pp. 2-4
Author(s):  
Ralph Hallo
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Initial Experience ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Aarhus Convention ◽  
Initial Results ◽  
The Eu

The Aarhus Convention is generally recognised as the most important international legal instrument in the field of environmental rights. All 27 EU Member States (with the exception of Slovakia) and the European Union have signed the Convention and all of these signatories (except Ireland) have now ratified the Convention. The Convention is generally described as having three pillars: access to information, public participation and access to justice. The EU prepared for ratification by adopting two directives and proposing a third, one for each of the three pillars (collectively, ‘the EU’s Aarhus Convention directives’). The EEB (the European Environmental Bureau) has been actively involved, over many years, in efforts to develop and use the Aarhus Convention. Two years after the deadline for transposition of the Information Directive and a year and a half after the deadline for transposition of the Public Participation Directive, the EEB determined that the time was right to launch an investigation into the initial experience with the implementation and use of the two directives. The EEB also wished to examine experiences with access to justice and the need for the currently stalled proposal.

scholarly journals Digital citizens’ participation right in defense of the environment

2021 ◽  
pp. 326-339
Author(s):  
Maria Ortiz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
The European Union ◽  
United Nations Economic Commission ◽  
National Regulation ◽  
Aarhus Convention ◽  
Participation In Decision Making ◽  
The Right

The Aarhus Convention of June 25, 1998, of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, introduced the commitment of each signing State to ensure, within the framework of its national regulation, that citizens could suit and appeal any decision, or any action or omission that falls within the scope of public participation regarding issues on environmental matters. Hence, citizens are entitled to appeal administratively and judicially against public environmental decisions if they invoke a legal infringement in relation to this issue. Access to justice for violation of the rights of public participation are set out in the same terms on Regulation (EU) number 1367/2006, of September 6, relating to the application, to the institutions and community bodies, of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice on environmental matters. Although the right of access is quite broad, it is not exempt from exceptions, such as those indicated on the Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of January 28, on public access to environmental information, which has recently been interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Judgement (First Chamber) of January 20, 2021 in the Land Baden-Württemberg case (Communications internes). However, all this is not useful if citizens are not granted with the possibility of accessing to control judicially administrative decisions that do not comply with environmental policies with the same extension, because the opportunity for any citizen to be entitled to effectively control these actions is being excluded. This paper aims to analyze the extent of the right of citizens to participate digitally in public decision-making of an environmental nature, and determine if such right is consistent with the possibilities of access to justice in this matter, since only through judicially control of the administrative decisions it is possible to make the participation right effective.

scholarly journals The Threat of Destitution as a Deterrent against Asylum Seeking in the European Union

Refuge ◽  
2006 ◽  
pp. 81-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvie Da Lomba
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Host Countries ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The problematization of asylum has detrimentally impacted on the provision of support for asylum seekers in host countries. The threat of destitution has become instrumental in restrictive asylum policies and is increasingly used as a deterrent against asylum seeking. The EU experience reveals acute tensions between the EU asylum agenda and the EU Member States’ obligations under international refugee and human rights law. The provision of support for asylum seekers challenges narrow approaches to the realization of socio-economic rights for “others” and to host countries’ duties in that respect. The EU Reception Conditions Directive, which aims to set out standards for the reception of asylum seekers across the Union, exemplifies this predicament. Yet international refugee and human rights law provides a legal framework that establishes minimum standards critical to dignified living for asylum seekers and the protection of the right to seek refugee status in the EU and beyond.

Front-of-pack nutrition labelling in the European Union: a behavioural, legal and political analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Vincent DELHOMME
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dietary Habits ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Nutrition Labelling ◽  
Political Analysis ◽  
Legislative Proposal ◽  
The Eu

Amidst a growing interest from European Union (EU) Member States, the European Commission recently announced that it would put forward a legislative proposal for the adoption of a harmonised and mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling scheme at the EU level. The present contribution discusses the implications of such an adoption, taking a behavioural, legal and policy angle. It introduces first the concept of front-of-pack nutrition labelling and the existing evidence regarding its effects on consumer behaviour and dietary habits. It then presents the legal framework currently applicable to (front-of-pack) nutrition labelling in the EU and discusses some of the main political and practical aspects involved with the development of a common EU front-of-pack label.

Calls of Duty: Romanian Politicians’ Deontological Discursive Strategies for Securing Free Movement in the European Union

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 43-66
Author(s):  
Saila Heinikoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Prime Ministers ◽  
Discursive Strategies ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article discusses how the right to free movement within the European Union is presented as a matter of obligation, a duty of the other EU member states, in the discourse of Romanian Presidents and Prime Ministers (2005–2015). An examination of speeches and other statements from these politicians illuminates Romanian political reactions during the period when Romania became an EU member state, and reflects perceptions of Europeanness and European agreements. These issues take on an additional contemporary significance in the context of the Brexit negotiations, and they also add to the broader debate on whether EU norms and obligations are seen as being both just and equally applied. By analysing different types of argumentative topoi, I examine the deontological (obligation-based) argumentation employed in the free movement context. Furthermore, I examine to what extent these arguments are invoked in support of the right to free movement and who this right applies to. I argue that for Romanian politicians, deontological free movement arguments are connected to other states’ compliance with European treaties and to demands for equal application of European rules without discrimination, or the delegation of responsibility to others. This manifested itself most frequently in the calls for the EU and its member states to do their duty by treating Romanians equally to other EU citizens.

scholarly journals Google LLC v. Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-267
Author(s):  
Monika Zalnieriute
Keyword(s):  
Search Engine ◽  
Data Privacy ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Data ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

In Google LLC v. Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) held that the EU law only requires valid “right to be forgotten” de-referencing requests to be carried out by a search engine operator on search engine versions accessible in EU member states, as opposed to all versions of its search engine worldwide. While the ruling has been perceived as a “win” for Google and other interveners, such as Microsoft and the Wikimedia Foundation, who argued against worldwide de-referencing, the Court also made clear that that while the EU law does not currently require worldwide de-referencing, “it also does not prohibit such a practice” (para. 72). As a result, the CJEU found that an order by a national supervisory or judicial authority of an EU member state requiring worldwide de-referencing in accordance with its own national data protection laws would not be inconsistent with EU law where the data subject's right to privacy is adequately balanced against the right to freedom of information. By leaving the door to extraterritorial de-referencing wide open, the CJEU continues to pursue its post-Snowden hard-line stance on data privacy in a manner that is likely to transform the data privacy landscape.

scholarly journals Preparation of a Legislative Proposal in the Multilingual Legal System of the European Union

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-50
Author(s):  
Anna Doliwa-Klepacka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Language Version ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legislative Proposal ◽  
Official Languages ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The principle of multilingualism in the legal system of the European Union is one of the key elements that guarantees, among others, the right of access to EU legislation. It is particularly important not only in the sphere of the direct application of the EU law, but also in the sphere of access to information during the lawmaking procedures at the EU institutions. A special case is, however, a stage of preparing a draft legislative proposal by the European Commission. The EU member states agree to limit the use of official language version to the working documents for “working” languages of the Commission, i.e. English, French and German. In practice, English and French are the most widely used languages for the working arrangements in the preparation of the draft legislation, mainly due to costs of the necessary translations and an effectiveness of this stage. This article presents a course of the stage of the drafting a legislative proposal by the Commission and illustrates the scope of work partly exempted from the obligation to ensure the full application of the principle of equivalence of all the official languages of the European Union.

Some decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of the European Union con cerning the right of asylum

10.12737/5251 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74
Author(s):  
Габриэлла Белова ◽  
Gabriela Belova ◽  
Мария Хаджипетрова-Лачова ◽  
Maria Hadzhipetrova-Lachova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Protective Mechanisms ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The authors analyze certain cases considered in recent years by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of European Union in Luxembourg and associated with providing of asylum to the third country nationals. In individual EU member states there are huge differences in the procedures and protective mechanisms for asylum seekers in their access to work, as well as in the use of mechanism of forced detention. Due to accession of the EU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU should comply the standards set by the Council of Europe. The authors analyze the new approach of the Strasbourg Court in decision MSS v. Belgium and Greece unlike other "Dublin" cases. They also consider certain new judgements of the Court of European Union in Luxembourg, some of which were accepted in order of urgent prejudicial production.

Caught Between National and Supranational Values: Limitations to Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters as Part of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice within the European Union

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-72
Author(s):  
Olivia den Hollander
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Third ◽  
The One ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

AbstractCurrently, the European Union is based on both supranational (first pillar) and international (second and third pillar) law. The third pillar signifies police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and although formally based on international law, it has been under increasing "supranational pressure" by the developments in the "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice". This Area is focused on a set of common values and principles closely tied to those of the single market and its four "freedoms". The main argument of this article is that the legal framework of the third pillar is an impediment to judicial cooperation in criminal matters in general, and to the coordination of conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem in particular. The legal framework of the third pillar finds itself in the middle of an identity crisis, since it can neither be identified as a traditional intergovernmental, nor as a supranational institutional framework. Criminal law is a politically sensitive matter, which on the one hand explains why the EU member states are reluctant to submit their powers over the issue to the European level and on the other hand, it implies that if the EU member states really want to cooperate on such an intensive level, they will have to submit some of their powers in order to strengthen EU constitutional law. The article suggests a reform of the third pillar through the method of "communitization", which is exactly what will happen in case the EU Reform Treaty will enter into force. This would offer the ingredients for a true international community in which the ambitious agenda of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice can realise its aim of a common set of values and principles which supersedes those of each of the member states individually.

scholarly journals The Implication of Fiscal Principles and Rules on Promoting Sustainable Public Finances in the EU Countries

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 2772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mihaela Onofrei ◽  
Anca Gavriluţă (Vatamanu) ◽  
Ionel Bostan ◽  
Florin Oprea ◽  
Gigel Paraschiv ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Panel Data Analysis ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Fiscal Rules ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Fiscal Responsibility ◽  
Public Finances ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Status ◽  
Outstanding Debt ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this study was to analyze fiscal behavior in the European Union countries, to highlight the implications of institutional constraints on healthy fiscal attitudes, and to test the relationship between government decisions, fiscal responsibility instruments, and the sustainability of public finances during the period 2000–2014. By using panel data analysis, we tested the responsiveness of primary balance to government indebtedness, as well as to some determinants of fiscal responsibility, such as the degree of public spending or fiscal rules effectiveness, and we included two different perspectives regarding fiscal rules status. First, we computed a fiscal responsibility index, which measures the applicability of or compliance with the fiscal rules, referring to legal dimensions and administrative and institutional capacity. Second, we established a fiscal responsibility convergence index, which measures the status of the EU Member States regarding the approach of numerical rules. The empirical findings indicate that fiscal authorities do not act to the existing stock of public debt and highlights a negative response of budget balances to the stock of outstanding debt. Fiscal position improves when the index of fiscal responsibility is involved and countries become more sustainable when they are related to the entire level of fiscal governance, with respect to legal framework, institutional and administrative capacity, but at the debt ratio threshold of over 90%, the effect of the overall fiscal rule comes out as less relevant for the improvement of the primary balance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document