Ground Breaking Landmark Case on Environmental Quality Standards?: The Consequences of the cjeu 'Weser-judgment' (C-461/13) for Water Policy and Law and Quality Standards in eu Environmental Law

Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law

Volumn 12, Issue 3-4, 2015, Pages 363-377

  Van Rijswick, H F M W ^a   Backes, Chris W ^b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84955275767     PISSN: 16137272     EISSN: 18760104     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/18760104-01204008     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. The Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Convention) was adopted in Helsinki in 1992 and entered into force in 1996. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1936, p. 269.
2. Keessen, A.M., Runhaar, H.A.C., Schoumans, O.F., Van Rijswick, H.F.M.W., Driessen, P.P.J., Oenema, O., and Zwart, K.B., The need for flexibility and differentiation in the protection of vulnerable areas in eu environmental law: the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in the Netherlands, Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law, JEEPL 8.2 (2011), p. 162-185.
3. J. Adshead, Public participation, the Aarhus Convention and the Water Framework Directive, Journal of Water Law, volume 17, 2006, p. 185 et seq.;
4. R. Fairley et al, Riding the new wave of European water law: how member states are tackling the Water Framework Directive, EEELR, vol.11, 2002, nr. 8/9, p. 232-239;
5. W. Howarth, Aspirations and Realities under the Water Framework Directive: Proceduralisation, Participation and Practicalities, Journal of Environmental Law 2009-3, p. 391-417.;
6. M. Lee, Law and Governance of Water Protection Policy, in: J. Scott (ed), Environmental Protection, European law and governance, Oxford, Oxford University press, 2009.
7. S. van Holten and H.F.M.W. van Rijswick, The consequences of a governance approach in European Environmental Directives for flexibility, effectiveness and legitimacy, in: M. Peeters and R. Uylenburg (eds.), eu environmental legislation: Legal perspectives on regulatory strategies, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014, p. 13-47.
8. See Ekkehard Hofmann (ed), Wasserrecht in Europa, nomos, Baden Baden 2015;
9. L. Baaner, Programmes of Measures under the Water Framework Directive - A Comparative Study, Nordic Environmental Law Journal, 2011/1, p. 31-52;
10. H. Josefsson, Good Ecological Status, Advancing the Ecology of Law, diss, Uppsala Universitet, 2015.
11. Henrik Josefsson, Lasse Baaner, Helle Tegner Anker and Lena Gipperth from the Scandinavian region and A.M. Keessen et al, European River Basins: Are They Swimming in the Same Implementation Pool?, Journal of Environmental Law, 22:2 (2010), 197-221 which paper was a result of the ongoing cooperation of water law specialists throughout Europe in the European network for water Law/Reseau d' eau.
12. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl-reports.htm.
13. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl-reports.htm.
14. P.E. Lindhout & H.F.M.W. van Rijswick, The effectiveness of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services jeopardized by the European Court of Justice, jeepl, 2015-1, pp 78-92
15. The JEEPL special issue on cost recovery with contributions from Germany, Portugal and the Netherlands, see Petra Lindhout, Moritz Reese and Marleen van Rijswick, Editorial in the special issue on Cost recovery for water services in European water law, JEEPL 10.4 (2013) 305-307, doi 10.1163/18760104-01004009.
16. Judgement of the Court (Grand Chamber) in Case C-461/13 of 1 July 2015; Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland eV versus Bundesrepublik Deutschland, and as joined party Freie Hansestadt Bremen.
17. W. Durner, Wasservertiefung muss bindende Vorgaben der wrrl einhalten, dvbl. 2015, 1049 qualifies the questions which were put forward as "the most discussed questions of interpretion of the whole water law in Germany" ('die meistdiskutiersteste Auslegungsfrage des gesamten Wasserrechts').
18. Conclusion ag 23 October 2014, C-461/13, point 33.
19. A.M. Keessen et al, European River Basins: Are They Swimming in the Same Implementation Pool?, Journal of Environmental Law, 22:2 (2010), 197-221.
20. ecj Case C-129/96 Inter-Environnement [1997] ecr i-7411.
21. See for example A.M. Keessen et al, European River Basins: Are They Swimming in the Same Implementation Pool?, Journal of Environmental Law, 22:2 (2010), 197-221.
22. K. Faßbender, Zur aktuellen Diskussion um das Verschlechterungsverbot der Wasserrrahmenrichtlinie, EurUP 2013, p. 70 with further readings for both opinions in footnotes 11 and 12.
23. The German ovg Hamburg 18 January 2013, 5 E 11/08, applied a strict view.
24. The same applies for The Netherlands, France, England and Denmark, see A.M. Keessen et al, European River Basins: Are They Swimming in the Same Implementation Pool?, Journal of Environmental Law, 22:2 (2010), p. 211.
25. Second Chamber of Parliament, 2015-2016, nr. 2015Z17417, 25 September 2015.