Statistics on environmental judgments by the EC court of justice

Journal of Environmental Law

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 407-421

  Krämer, Ludwig ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; STATISTICAL APPLICATION;

EID: 33750491209     PISSN: 09528873     EISSN: 1464374X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jel/eql019     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. The first EC Directive that had the objective to protect the environment was Directive 75/439 on waste oils (1975) OJ L194 p 23,
2. followed by Directive 75/440 on surface water used for the production of drinking water (1975) OJ L194, p 26,
3. Directive 75/442 on waste (1975) OJ L195, p 39
4. and Directive 76/160 on the quality of bathing water (1976) OJ L31, p 1.
5. For references on earlier years, see L. Krämer, 'Die Rechtsprechung der EG-Gerichte zum Umweltrecht 1992-1994', Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 25 (1995) 45;
6. 'Die Rechtsprechung der EG-Gerichte zum Umweltrecht 1995-1997', Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 25 (1998) 309;
7. 'Die Rechtsprechung der EG-Gerichte zum Umweltrecht 1998-1999', Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 27 (2000) 265;
8. 'Die Rechtsprechung der EG-Gerichte zum Umweltrecht 2000-2001', Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 29 (2002) 483;
9. 'Die Rechtsprechung der EG-Gerichte zum Umweltrecht 2002-2003', Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 2 (2005) 127.
10. See case T-168/02 IFAW v Commission, judgment of 30 November 2004, not yet reported. The case concerned access to documents on the environment, and the applicant lost the case. Of course, the Court of First Instance did not discuss the scandalous underlying problem: The Commission had decided to close an infringement case against Germany because of breach of obligations under Directive 79/409 on the protection of birds. The Commission decision had been taken after a letter by the German chancellor to the Commission President. And the applicant in the case had wanted to have access to that letter which it did not obtain.
11. See e.g. Court of Justice, cases C-247/87 Star Fruit v Commission [1989] ECR I-289;
12. C-29/92 Asia Motor France v Commission [1992] ECR I-3935.
13. Court of Justice, case C-502/02, Commission v Greece, judgment of 6 October 2005, not yet reported. Estimations go considerably beyond that figure.
14. Court of Justice, cases C-383/02 Commission v Italy, judgment of 9 September 2004, unpublished (landfill at Rodano);
15. C-447/03 Commission v Italy, judgment of 25 November 2004, unpublished (landfill at Manfredonia);
16. C-516/03 Commission v Italy, judgment of 16 December 2004, unpublished (landfill at Campolungo);
17. C-449/05 Commission v France, judgment of 10 March 2005, not yet reported (landfill in Guyana);
18. C-157/04 Commission v Spain, judgment of 28 April 2004, unpublished (landfills at Punta de Avelos and Olvera).
19. Court of Justice, case C-378/97 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR I-5047.
20. Court of Justice, case C-278/01 Commission v Spain [2003] ECR I-14141.
21. Directive 76/160 (supra n 1) requires that during the bathing season, the water is regularly sampled and that 95% of the measurements must comply with the vales that were laid down in the Directive. The Commission, in contrast, argued that, overall, 94.7% of all Spanish inland bathing waters corresponded, end 2004, with the requirements of Directive 76/160. Thus, instead of looking at the individual bathing water, the Commission took the 95% figure to refer to all bathing waters. This is neither what Directive 76/160 states nor what the Court had decided.
22. Commission document SEC (2005) 1446 (see Table 5 footnote) contains (p 9) a list of all cases which the Commission submitted to the Court of Justice under Article 228 EC Treaty. This list includes the amount of the penalty payment which the Commission had requested. By the end of 2004, five cases were pending before the Court.
23. C-174/91 Commission v Belgium [1993] ECR I-2275;
24. C-366/89 Commission v Italy [1993] ECR I-4201;
25. C-291/93 Commission v Italy [1994] ECR I-859.
26. This appears to be incompatible with the requirements of Regulation 1049/ 2001 on access to documents (2001) OJ L145, p 43,
27. see L. Krämer, 'Access to Letters of Formal Notice and Reasoned Opinions in Environmental Law Matters', European Environmental Law Review 12 (2003) 197.
28. Commission, 22nd Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law (2004) COM (2005) 570 of 23 December 2005.
29. The time span of eighty months has been arbitrarily taken by the author of this contribution. From the point of view of good administration, it would appear more appropriate to give a justification in each individual case, where a delay of sixty months (five years) was exceeded. In 2004-2005, there were 16 such cases.
30. See Commission Sixth Annual Report on the Implementation and Enforcement of Community Environmental Law 2004, SEC (2005) 1055 of 17 August 2005 which is practically identical to Chapter 2.5 of SEC (2005) 1466 (see Table 5 footnote).