1 Introduction: Normative Sources of Ecological Sustainability in the Multilevel System
Due to the short life of democratic legislatures, political decisions tend to focus on the present and ignore the future. This postpones the burden of today’s decisions to tomorrow, limiting the scope for future political action. Investment in the future tends to be delayed in favour of consumer spending, while natural resources are used without considering future availability.1
At international level, the desire to counteract this short-sighted attitude led to a report of the World Commission on Environment and Development entitled Our Common Future (Brundtland Report)2 in 1987 and to the Rio Declaration of the United Nations in 1992.3 Preserving a viable environment was described in these documents according to the constitutional theory of intergenerational equity.4 The concept of intergenerational equity, originally associated with providing effective social security systems, has thus become part of a broader sustainability concept.
The principle of sustainability is widely upheld by European Union primary law. Art 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) contains the so-called “cross-cutting clause”, extending to all areas of EU and member state policies, which incorporates environmental protection requirements to promote sustainable development. Art 37 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) reiterates the aim of a qualitatively and quantitatively
In the Section specifically dedicated to environmental policies, art 191 (2) TFEU does not explicitly mention the sustainability principle, but it does break down the EU’s environmental policy into the four principles of precaution, prevention, priority action to address pollution at its source, and the polluter-pays principle, which are the premises for sustainable development. Thus, an ex-ante and pro-active approach (precaution, prevention) is combined with an ex-post response based on consequence elimination and compensation (source elimination, polluter-pays principle). All these principles are designed to reduce the likelihood and extent of environmental damage, in harmony with the sustainability principle, which is also mentioned by legal sources not directly connected to environmental law.5
In particular, the principle of preventive action introduced by the Maastricht Treaty (1992) can be seen as a first step towards sustainable development.6 Its (partial) overlap with the precautionary principle is probably due to the fact that originally the German word ‘Vorsorge’ covered both concepts semantically. The principle of prevention becomes relevant when damage is certain, while the purely precautionary principle applies to cases in which a harmful event is possible.7 The difference therefore depends on how certain the likelihood of harm
In addition, constitutional comparisons show that the sustainability principle is now a structural element of European constitutional law (Ius Commune Europaeum) and is thus part of the common constitutional tradition of the member states,10 where it covers economic, social and environmental sustainability.11
In some legal systems, like that of Germany, only the principle of ecological sustainability has been explicitly constitutionalized. It became a “state goal” (Staatszielbestimmung) in 1994.12 According to this provision, the contrat
In other countries, like Italy, the principle of ecological sustainability was, till recent times,17 only promoted by ordinary law. For example art 3-ter of the Italian Environmental Code (Codice dell’ambiente), considering responsibility for future generations, invokes the sustainability principle, together with the precautionary principle and the principle of preventive action to monitor the long-term consequences of human action.18 These principles also establish the principle of environmental action (principio di azione ambientale) in Italian law, with preserving as well as proactive functions.19
In recent times, the principle of sustainability, in the sense of responsibility for future generations, has gained momentum, particularly under the pressure of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which set out a global framework to avoid dangerous climate change.20 In tune with this commitment, the German Federal
2 Impact of Supranational Concepts through Transposition of Directives in EU Member States
The European Union is not only a legal community but also an implementation community.27 It is based on the idea of integration through law, which implies European harmonization through common rules.28 There are countless studies and publications on the interaction between the law of the European Union and that of member states, and in particular on the Europeanisation of national administrative law. Little attention has been paid to the different transposition of European law by member states, despite its fundamental impact on national implementation practices.29 This particularly applies to the implementation of directives, which are binding according to
EU law also requires effective enforcement, which according to art 291 (1) TFEU is fundamentally the responsibility of member states. Implementation (in the French language version mise en oeuvre) encompasses both legislative and administrative enforcement. Thus the implementation study not only involves interpretation and implementation of EU law by national authorities, but also and above all how the directives are transposed. Factors that strongly influence the implementation of EU law are administrative procedure, administrative organization and the judicial review system, as well as the legal and administrative culture of the respective administrative bodies.30
In analysing the methods of implementation of directives in member states, three variants are of particular interest, since they are often linked to strategic considerations: first, minimal implementation, aimed at interfering as little as possible with the legal system of the member state; secondly, gold-plating, which involves adding conditions not envisaged by European law (it is disapproved of by Brussels, as it can lead to distortions or hybridization and can threaten achievement of European goals);31 thirdly, spillover, which extends the scope of implementation beyond what is specified by a directive and may even lead to structural reform of national law. The latter, in particular, highlights an innovative potential of EU law, which goes far beyond its scope.
2.1 Do Member States Tend to Prefer Minimal (One-to-One) Implementation?
Implementation allows various interpretations by member states: on one hand, the directives are to be implemented “without omissions” and in line with the objectives of European law; on the other hand, the requirements of European law are not to be “over-fulfilled”.32 At first glance, almost all member states seem to prefer minimal implementation. In this sense, the (now abolished) Transposition Guidance of the UK Department for Business,
However, the shortcomings of this strategy should be borne in mind: on one hand, implementation has to consider the idea of subsidiarity (pursuant to art 5 [3] TEU), which also means self-determination and responsibility of the member states. On the other hand, it should enable member states to fit the requirements, which are sometimes effectively legal transplants,43 harmoniously into their legal system.44 The free choice of form, which is inherent to transposition of a directive into national law, enables member states to do what is referred to in political science literature as ”customization”, namely adapting the standard program of the directive to national traditions.45 The European Commission also states that
member states have the important responsibility of the timely implementation and full application of EU Law. In that regard, it is up to member state authorities to use simplification options offered by EU legislation and ensure that EU laws are applied at national, regional and local level as effectively and efficiently as possible.46
2.2
Based on this quick overview, the widespread preference for ‘no gold-plating’, under which any non-minimalist transposition of European law has a negative connotation, would mostly seem to discourage gold-plating implementation practices. Gold-plating means that the scope or legal consequences of implementation go further than the directive provisions themselves.47 One example, concerning over-fulfilment of the scope of a certain European regulation, is extension of the obligation to conduct environmental impact assessment (EIA) to projects not covered by the directive in question.48 The same is also conceivable for the legal consequences. In this case, stricter sanctions or enforcement mechanisms than required by Union law are introduced.49
Certain situations may justify gold-plating: eg if national law was already compliant with the requirements of Union law and included areas that went beyond the European requirements before transposition of the directive. Conversely, when the Environmental Information Directive was implemented in Poland, the exact opposite occurred: national rules were restricted as a result of implementation of the directive on environmental information.50 Gold-plating can also make sense if the legislator perceives inconsistency between regulations determined by Union law and other sectors not determined by Union law.51 Political questions may also be at stake. In terms of legal policy, a solution found at EU level may be deemed particularly convincing and promising if for instance it is more advanced than the provisions of national law.52 For example, Directive 2003/35/EC,53 which implements the second pillar of
Another goal could be to avoid discrimination against nationals. Particularly in the area of internal market law (primary and secondary), EU rules concern matters of a cross-border character, whereas purely domestic questions are left to national law. In this case, gold-plating may only be a matter of avoiding unequal treatment in the national legal system,55 although it should be borne in mind that any non-minimalist implementation of European law leads to national differences and fragmentation of the internal market, the opposite of legal harmonization.56
Gold-plating possibilities also depend on the degree of harmonization that European law requires of the national legislator. If it aims for complete harmonization, national regulations are completely replaced with a common standard. Conversely, if a directive envisages minimum harmonization, member state laws will only partially converge, even if greater protection measures are adopted. In the latter case, the leeway available to member states remains outside the sphere of EU law.57 The choice between complete or minimum harmonization must be established on a case-by-case basis. The EU Treaty only specifies this in certain instances. For example, pursuant to art 114 (4) and (5) TFEU, in the framework of establishment and functioning of the internal market, member states may derogate from the requirements of art 114 (1) TFEU, inter alia for the sake of environmental protection.58
Gold-plating can also be implemented in the case of directives that stipulate complete harmonization, as long as primary law includes a protection enhancement clause that allows member states to maintain higher national standards.59 For example, art 193 TFEU provides that measures in the field of
2.3 Indirect Europeanisation (Spillover) as an Opportunity to Promote Wide-ranging Reforms in Areas Not Concerned by European Union Law
Besides modifications resulting directly from provisions of Union law (direct Europeanisation), there may be indirect transformations in administrative law (indirect Europeanisation or spillover) which cannot be directly traced to explicit requirements outlined in EU directives, but are somehow linked to them.61 Spillover may be when standards, procedures and organisational structures established by EU law are extended to neighbouring areas.62 Unlike gold-plating, spillover is not problematic in the case of legal changes that cannot be directly traced back to explicit requirements outlined in EU directives, as its goal is not to increase the scope of directives, but rather to adopt the requirements of a directive outside its scope. As in the case of gold-plating, the reasons for spillover may depend on how consistent and homogeneous the national legal system is, as well as on avoidance of unwarranted distinctions.63
At first glance, ‘no gold-plating’ policies seem to exclude such over-implementation. However, the freedom of information principle is an example of how a hesitant direct transposition of EU laws in the field of access to environmental information may nevertheless nudge64 national legislators to implement similar principles in other areas of the law. If we examine the German example, there is a broad consensus among scholars that the legislation on access to environmental information (first pillar of the Aarhus Convention,
In the United Kingdom, contextually with the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) came into force in 2004, establishing the office of Information Commissioner to enforce a general right of access to administrative information.73 Independent information
A particularly good example of spillover in member states on implementation of the Environmental Information Directives occurred in Italy. The most recent regulation dealing with transparency is the Transparency Decree (Legislative Decree no 97/2016), which aims for a complete right to access public information, irrespective of legal position (protected or otherwise) (art 7), and uses the same wording as Directive 2003/4/EC on environmental information. Art 2(1) of the Transparency Decree envisages “free access for all to data and documents held by the public administration”, which in addition to the objective of transparency, also aims at combatting corruption among civil servants.76
Regarding public participation, spillover can also be seen in the new Italian Code on public procurement,77 which envisages the possibility of public debate (débat public) with a view to conducting feasibility studies on major infrastructure projects. This form of participation was based on the French Commission Nationale du Débat Public, which has a role in testing the environmental compatibility of major construction projects.78 As a legal institution, public debate is not mentioned in the three new public procurement
3 A Paradigmatic Shift towards Public Participation under the Pressure of European Environmental Law
The European Union is committed to protecting and preserving the environment and improving its quality. To do so and to implement its obligation under the second pillar of the Aarhus Convention, the Public Participation Directive 2003/35/EC reviewed the EIA Directive81 and the IPPC Directive.82 The two procedures had already become important instruments for integrative and preventive environmental protection.83 With the EIA Directive, European law
A preferred area for application of the precautionary and preventive principles is regional planning, where sustainability is a top priority under European law. In this context, risk assessment has to be conducted in a general framework and case-by-case solutions are considered an option of last resort. This approach led the European Union to adopt the SEA (strategic impact assessment) Directive84 with a view to preventive environmental protection. SEA is an independent part of the administrative procedure for drawing up and amending plans and programmes and for avoiding multiple audits.85 Unlike the EIA, it does not concern specific projects but examines plans and programmes, such as urban planning laws, expected to have significant environmental impacts. The purpose of the SEA is to identify likely significant environmental impacts and “reasonable alternatives” and to document them in an environmental report.86 The report is the result of extensive public participation. The decision-making process must consider the comments submitted when adopting the plan.87 In addition, subsequent monitoring is contemplated in art 10.88
Concerning administrative procedure, two trends have emerged in connection with the new provisions on public participation: a deviation from the general rules of procedure when environmental concerns come into play, combined with the choice of a special procedure with a focus on the crucial role of public participation.89 Under art 2 (2) of the Public Participation Directive 2003/35/EC, the public should be given an “early and effective” opportunity to participate in the preparation or revision of plans and programs. In this context
As a result of these Directives, the German legal doctrine emphasizes a transition from a “serving function of the procedure” (dienende Funktion des Verfahrens) to the “own value of the procedure” (Eigenwert des Verfahrens)91 or rather to the “procedure as a mode of implementation of administrative law” (Verfahren als Verwirklichungsmodus des Verwaltungsrechts),92 which means that the specification and enforcement of substantive law requires an adaptation of procedural law.93 Thus, the EIA and the SEA Directives both implement three essential environmental law principles, consisting of environmental precaution through early determination of the effects of plans and projects, integrative examination of all environmental media and their interactions, as well as cooperation between state and society, in particular through public participation initiatives aimed at sharing information with private and public stakeholders.
According to the above-mentioned Public Participation Directive, the results of the deliberation process must be adequately considered in regulatory decision-making. The Directive covers projects subject to EIA or approval under the IPPC directive (now the Industrial Emissions Directive, IE).94 Plans and programs under the SEA95 and Water Framework Directives (WFD) have their own rules on public participation.96
In this way, art 9 (2) of the Aarhus Convention is implemented by European law. Thus the public participation system, alias the second pillar of the Aarhus Convention, also strengthens procedural rights in judicial procedures.98 The German literature repeatedly emphasizes the aim of “mobilizing the citizen to enforce the law”,99 which expresses “functional subjectification” (funktionale Subjektivierung) in European environmental protection, since environmental organizations act as trustees of the public, adopting a status procuratoris on behalf of the people concerned.
4 Obstacles to Implementation Linked to Public Participation and Sustainability According to the Water Framework Directive
The case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the role of national administrative courts in the enforcement of European environmental law poses a challenge for administrative judges of various member states, where the task of administrative jurisdiction is subjective legal protection, completed in environmental matters by association rights. The case law of the ECJ, based on the provisions of art 9 of the Aarhus Convention, seems to call for a switch to objective administrative control concerning participatory rights
The protection of water resources is an example of the important role of public participation. With adoption of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC,101 member states of the European Union committed themselves to ambitious water quality targets, in particular in the context of aquatic ecology. The environmental objectives are defined in art 4 WFD for surface waters, groundwater and protected areas. A water deterioration ban must be observed in any approval procedure as an immediate requirement, whereas the water improvement requirement must be reconciled with the other aims of the WFD and must be specified by planning measures.102
As a key implementation tool, the WFD prescribes the drawing up of river basin management plans103 and programs of measures,104 based on which member states determine their waterbody management. These were first to be compiled in December 2009 and updated every six years.105
Concerning the WFD, the Protect decision of 20 December 2007 is worth mentioning with reference to the link between participatory rights and the right of action of environmental associations.106 In this dispute, based on art 4 of the WFD, the Austrian environmental organization Protect put forward objections in court against approval of a snowmaking system, because exploitation of the water had significantly worsened the condition of the creek in question (Einsiedlbach). On request of the Austrian Administrative Court, the ECJ was called to make a preliminary ruling on whether a breach of the obligations under art 4 of the WFD authorized a legally recognized water protection association to challenge decisions made within the framework of water law permit procedures, even when an EIA-compliant project, for which art 9 para 2 of the Aarhus Convention awarded a right to sue, was not concerned. The ECJ stated that where participation as a party to the administrative procedure was
Thus, the ECJ promoted an extension of the procedural participation rights of environmental associations by pleading that Protect should be involved as a party in proceedings concerning implementation of the WFD. Here, the ECJ explicitly mentioned art 14 of the WFD (public information and consultation), which states that member states should “encourage active involvement of all interested parties (…), in particular in the production, review and updating of river basin management plans”.109 The ECJ emphasized that the phrase “in particular” implies that public participation cannot be limited to management plans, even though the verb “encourage”, with its programmatic meaning, might limit the binding nature of the provision.110 With this judgement, the ECJ updated jurisdiction in the first Slovak Brown Bear Case of 2011, which paved the way for broader rights of action for environmental organizations.111
Already in a previous judgement the ECJ also stated that Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations under art 11 of EIA Directive 2011/92/EU, because
Other limitations to access to justice by an environmental organization, pursuant to art 10a of the EIA directive, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation, had also previously been brought before the ECJ, and had consequently lead to a modification of the above-mentioned Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz.114
Finally on 14 January 2021, the ECJ clarified the meaning of access to justice of the “public” and the ”public concerned”, according to the Aarhus Convention.115 In the underlying legal dispute before a Dutch court, a natural person, who had not made a statement in the public participation procedure, took action against approval of a pig farm that was subject to environmental impact assessment. According to the Dutch court, the plaintiff (a veterinarian) was not a “party” in the sense intended by Dutch administrative law, since she did not live near the project concerned. Seeking a preliminary ruling, the court asked the ECJ whether restriction of access to justice to “parties” as intended by the national law was compatible with the Aarhus Convention (AC). The ECJ clarified that Art 9 (2) AC only bestows legal standing on “public concerned” but that exclusion of legal standing due to absence of prior participation in an administrative procedure infringed EU law. This would be assessed differently if a member state granted ‘the public’ a further right of participation according to art 9 (3) AC. In this case, such persons must have access to justice based on the more extensive rights to participate in the decision-making procedure,
5 Conclusions
Since correct functioning of the Union legal system depends on effective enforcement of primary and secondary law, correct transposition and implementation of directives by member states play a key role. Directives are a compromise between preserving national characteristics and the requirements of a uniform EU-wide legal system.117 Implementation must take place in such a way that the leeway granted in addition to binding requirements (art 288 (3) TFEU: ”the choice of form and means”) ensure the practical effectiveness of Union law in the national context. Without effective implementation of Union law, the legal community loses its integrative power and its compliance with the “rule of law”.118 The present analysis of the relationship between sustainability and public participation in environmental law leads to the following conclusions.
The implementation of EU law is now changing not only the substantive but also the procedural and organisational law of member states. The focus on public participation is a clear example of this development. On the other hand, a tendency to standardize regulatory areas can be observed at European level. The rules on public participation – apart from those of EIA and SEA – are now included in various directives, such as the WFD, the IE Directive and the directive on environmental liability.119 Various procedures that originally identified SEA (detailed preliminary report, environmental report, monitoring scheme) have also been transferred to EIA, so as to promote uniform procedural standards.120 The concept of integrative, multimedia environmental protection, as embodied in the SEA, EIA and IE directives, is also becoming increasingly widespread.
Under the pressure of European law, a redefinition of the time dimension of sustainability has taken place, due to the emphasis given to precautionary and preventive action. As far as environmental protection is concerned, there are two well-known conceptual possibilities: either an anthropocentric approach, meaning that environmental protection is for the benefit of man, or an ecocentric approach, in which environmental protection is focused on the protection of nature (soil, water and air).121 The concept of sustainability tends to focus attention on people, namely future generations, following the anthropocentric approach. Under the Aarhus Convention, environmental protection, in the sense of healthcare and human well-being, has therefore given environmental organizations the role of “nature advocates” taking “altruistic collective action” (altruistische Verbandsklagen)122 to protect the human future.
Wolfgang Kahl, ‘Staatsziel Nachhaltigkeit und Generationengerechtigkeit’ (2009) 1 DÖV 2.
Mostafa Kamal Tolba and Asit K Biswas, Earth and Us: Population, Resources, Environment, Development (Butterworth-Heinemann 1991).
Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, General Assembly, United Nations publications (Vol. I), U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (1992) (Rio Declaration).
Kahl, n 1, at 3 ff; Wolfgang Kahl, ‘“Soziale Gerechtigkeit” oder Generationengerechtigkeit? Zur Notwendigkeit der Wiederbelebung einer verfassungspolitischen Debatte aus aktuellem Anlass’ (2014) 1 ZRP 1.
For example in the context of public procurement, Parliament and Council Directive 2014/24/EU (second recital) of 26 February 2014, [2014] Official Journal of the EU (OJ) L 94/65, Parliament and Council Directive 2014/23/EU (third recital), [2014] OJ L 94/1 and Parliament and Council Directive 2014/25/EU (fourth recital), [2014] OJ EU L 94/243 combine the concept of sustainability with the policy of public procurement, stressing that: “Public procurement plays a key role in the Europe 2020 strategy, set out in the Commission Communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020, a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’, as one of the market-based instruments to be used to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth while ensuring the most efficient use of public funds”.
Treaty of 1 January 1958 establishing the European Economic Community (TEEC)[1957] EUR-Lex 11957E, art 130 r (2) TEEC; Treaty of 1 November 1993 on European Union (TEC or Treaty of Maastricht) [1992] OJ C 191/1, art 174 (2) TEC.
In international law, the precautionary principle was initially mentioned in relation to damage to the marine environment, and the precautionary measures were based on the best available information (Francesco de Leonardis, ‘Tra precauzione, prevenzione e programmazione’, in Loredana Giani, Marina D‘Orsogna and Aristide Police (eds.), Dal diritto dell’emergenza al diritto del rischio (Editoriale Scientifica Napoli 2018)49. Another area is air pollution control, eg the ”precautionary measures” mentioned in the preamble of the Vienna Convention to protect the ozone layer, entered into force 22 September 1988, 1513 UNTS 293; see Paolo Giargiulo, ‘Brevi riflessioni sulla natura giuridica e il contenuto dei principi di precauzione e di prevenzione nel diritto internazionale’, in Loredana Giani, Marina D‘Orsogna and Aristide Police (eds.), Dal diritto dell’emergenza al diritto del rischio (Editoriale Scientifica Napoli 2018)31.
See de Leonardis F, ‘Tra precauzione, prevenzione e programmazione’, in Loredana Giani, Marina D‘Orsogna and Aristide Police (eds.), Dal diritto dell’emergenza al diritto del rischio (Editoriale Scientifica Napoli 2018), at 52 f.
The concept of danger is drawn from German police law and concerns a sequence of events, objectively foreseeable unless measures are taken and sufficiently likely to damage legally protected property. On the other hand, risk falls in the category of danger that has not yet materialized (Noch-nicht-Gefahr). Although the parameters are again the extent and probability of damage (ie the greater the asset threatened, the lower the probability threshold for intervention), the harmful event is less plausible than in the case of danger, and the danger threshold has not yet been crossed, as the situations at stake are only potentially critical; see Wolf-Rüdiger Schenke, Polizei- und Ordnungsrecht (10th ed, C.F. Müller 2018), para 261; Fritz Ossenbühl, ‘Vorsorge als Rechtsprinzip im Gesundheits- Arbeits- und Umweltschutz’ (1986) 2 NVwZ 161 ff; Rüdiger Breuer, ‘Immissionsschutzrechtliche Vorsorge und Stand der Technik’ (2016) 12 NVwZ 822. Furthermore, from a chronological point of view, there is no situation of danger when the damage is likely to occur in the distant future (Elena Buoso, ‘I principi di precauzione e prevenzione nel diritto ambientale’, in Simone Budelli (ed.), Società del rischio, Governo dell’emergenza, (Ambientediritto Editore 2020).
Kahl, n 1, at 3 ff. The author mentions various comparative law references. Thus, art 6 of the Charte de l’Environnement, part of the French Constitution, envisages reconciling “développement durable” with economic development and social progress. This shows that the French Constitution clearly recognizes the ‘three-pillar’ concept of sustainability. The principle of sustainability is also contained in the Preamble to the Swiss Federal Constitution (2000). According to art 24 (1) of the Greek Constitution, protection of the natural and cultural environment is a public duty. The Swedish Constitution also defines the principle of ecological sustainability with regard to future generations in § 2 (3). Finally, the Polish Constitution (art 5) explicitly mentions the principle of environmental sustainability, as does the Constitution of Portugal (art 66 (2)).
Gerd Winter, ‘Ökologische Verhältnismäßigkeit’ (2013) 7–8 ZUR 387.
See art 20a of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG). ‘State goals’ are less than fundamental rights and do not grant individuals any legally enforceable right. They are more than program norms, since they oblige the state to work to achieve them, which is why they are primarily a legislative mandate. See more extensively Karl-Peter Sommermann, Staatsziele und Staatszielbestimmungen (Mohr Siebeck 1997).
“Mindful also of its responsibility towards future generations, the state shall protect the natural foundations of life and animals by legislation, executive and legal action, according to law and justice, all in the framework of constitutional law.” See Winter, n 11, at 387.
Art 20 and 28 German Basic Law.
BVerfGE 82, 60, 80.
See in particular art 109 and 115 of the German Basic Law, amended by the law of 29 July 2009 (BGBL. I p. 2248).
The recent constitutional reform, implemented with the constitutional law no. 1 of 11 February 2022 (Official Gazette no. 44 of 22 February 2022) has, however, amended art 9 of the Italian Constitution (in the section dedicated to the “fundamental principles”) with the introduction of a provision, according to which “The Republic […] protects the environment, biodiversity and ecosystems, also in the interest of future generations. State law regulates the methods and forms of animal protection”. In art. 41 (in the section dedicated to the “rights and duties of citizens”) has been further introduced among the limitations to private economic initiative a prohibition to cause damage to health and the environment.
Ruggiero Dipace, ‘Sviluppo sostenibile, prevenzione e precauzione nella disciplina dei lavori pubblici’, in Loredana Giani, Marina D’Orsogna and Aristide Police (eds.), Dal diritto dell’emergenza al diritto del rischio (Editoriale Scientifico Napoli 2018).
Pierluca Maceroni, ‘L’organizzazione amministrativa del diritto ambientale’, in Paolo Dell’Anno and Eugenio Picozza (eds.), Trattato di diritto dell’ambiente (Vol. 2, CEDAM 2013) 861.
Paris Agreement, entered into force 4 November 2015, 3156 UNTS 54113, unfccc.int/process/conferences/pastconferences/paris-climate-change-conference-november-2015/paris-agreement last accessed 17 September 2021. The Paris Agreement, which was signed by the EU and member states (a so-called ‘mixed agreement’), is well known for being the first ever, universal, legally binding document. The general goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global average temperature increase to well below 2 C° and preferably 1.5 C° above pre-industrial levels. Another goal is to strengthen and support the efforts of the signatory states in dealing with the impacts of climate change, by ‘mitigation and adaptation’. The Paris Agreement was adopted at the Paris climate conference in December 2015. The EU and its member states are among the almost 190 parties to the Paris Agreement. The EU formally ratified the agreement on 5 October 2016, enabling it to come into force on 4 November 2016. See European Commission, ‘Climate Action – Paris Agreement’ (European Commission) https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/international-action-climate-change/climate-negotiations/paris-agreement_de (last accessed 28 September 2021).
See Constanze Janda, ‘Sozialstaat for Future – Der Klima-Beschluss des BVerfG und seine Bedeutung für die Sozialgesetzgebung’ (2021) 5 ZRP 149.
Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz of 12 December 2019 (BGBl. I p. 2513).
The Federal Climate Change Act makes it compulsory to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and defines reduction pathways with sectoral annual emission quotas (§ 3(1) and § 4(1)).
First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court, Order of 24 March 2021, BVerfGE 157, 30–177.
For a comparison with other judgements on climate protection, see Andrea de Petris, ‘Protezione del clima e dimensione intertemporale delle libertà fondamentali: Karlsruhe for Future?’ (2021) 4 Ceridap 127. See also: Jörg Berkemann, ‘“Freiheitschancen über die Generationen” (Art. 20a GG) Intertemporaler Klimaschutz im Paradigmenwechsel’ (2021) 16 DÖV 701; Walter Frenz, ‘Klimaschutzpflichten als Grundrechtsvoraussetzungsschutz nach Klimabeschluss und Jahrhunderthochwasser’ (2021) 16 DÖV 715. For a comparison with the previous self-restraint of the German Constitutional Court see Rainer Wolf, ‘Das Bundesverfassungsgericht – Hüter der Umwelt?’ (1984) 3 Kritische Justiz 239; Andreas Voßkuhle, ‘Umweltschutz und Grundgesetz’ (2013) 1 NVwZ 1.
Die Bundesregierung, ‘Klimaschutzgesetz 2021 Generationenvertrag für das Klima‘, bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/klimaschutz/klimaschutzgesetz-2021-1913672 last accessed 17 September 2021. On the social dimension of climate protection, see Janda, n 21, at 149 ff.
See more extensively on this point, Karl-Peter Sommermann and Cristina Fraenkel-Haeberle, ‘L’Unione Europea come comunità di implementazione - Strategie nazionali di recepimento delle direttive europee’ (2021) 2 Ceridap 111.
Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe and Joseph H. H. Weiler, ‘Integration Through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience’, in Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe and Joseph H. H. Weiler (eds.), Integration through Law (Vol. I, DeGruyter 1986) 3–68. For an evaluation of the investigation perspective ‘integration through law’ see Antoine Vauchez, ‘”Integration-through-law”. Contribution to a socio-history of EU political commonsense’(2008) EUI Working Papers RSCAS 2008/10.
An international research project, conducted at the German Research Institute for Public Administration (Speyer) from 2015 to 2019, was dedicated to implementation of EU directives and the adaptation strategies of selected EU member states in the environmental field. The results of this project were published in Cristina Fraenkel-Haeberle, Johannes Socher and Karl-Peter Sommermann (eds.), Praxis der Richtlinienumsetzung im Europäischen Verwaltungsverbund: die Reichweite der Umgestaltung der nationalen Umwelt- und Energieverwaltung (Duncker&Humblot 2020); Cristina Fraenkel-Haeberle, Diana-Urania Galetta and Karl-Peter Sommermann (eds.), Europäisierung und Internationalisierung im Vergleich: deutsch-italienische Analysen zur Denationalisierung der Öffentlichen Verwaltung (Duncker&Humblot 2017). A previous comparative study on the implementation of environmental directives can be found in Heinrich Siedentopf and Jacques Ziller, Making European policies work. The implementation of Community legislation in the member states, Volume 2: National Reports (SAGE Publications Ltd 1988).
Karl-Peter Sommermann, ‘Die Umsetzung von Richtlinien im Umwelt- und Energiebereich durch die EU-Mitgliedstaaten: vergleichende Schlussfolgerungen’, in Fraenkel-Haeberle, Socher, Sommermann n 29, at 321 ff.
Ulrich Stelkens and Melanie Payrhuber, ‘Gold-Plating bei der Umsetzung der Dienstleistungsrichtlinie durch extensive Auslegung des § 42a VwVfG? Vom Rechtsvergleich als Instrument zur Bestimmung des Ziels einer Richtlinie’ (2018) 4 NVwZ, 195.
Jürgen Schwarze, ‘Richtlinienumsetzung “eins zu eins”’, in Rainer Pitschas et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Rupert Scholz zum 70. Geburtstag (Duncker & Humblot 2007).
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, ‘Transposition Guidance: How to implement European Directives effectively’ (London, 2011) para 2.2: “When transposing EU legislation the aim should be to avoid going beyond the minimum requirements of the measure being transposed. Taking such an approach will ensure that the UK does not create unnecessary legislative burdens and place UK business at a competitive disadvantage.”
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills n 33, at 8.
CDU, CSU und SPD, ‘Ein neuer Aufbruch für Europa – Eine neue Dynamik für Deutschland – Ein neuer Zusammenhalt für unser Land - Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD’ (19th legislature, Berlin, 7 February 2018), pp 13, 57, 64, 137, www.cdu.de/system/tdf/media/dokumente/koalitionsvertrag_2018.pdf, last accessed 17 September 2018; similar wording was already contained in the coalition agreement between CDU, CSU and SPD, of 18th legislature at p 15 and in the coalition agreement between CDU, CSU and FDP of 17th legislature at p 115. The newly elected Chancellor Merkel had already affirmed this principle in her first government declaration of 30 November 2005.
Since 2000, with its commitments against excessive implementation in government programs, Austria has also been strong in minimalist implementation of European law. The elimination of gold-plating was even defined as a priority in the current government program 2017–22; see Franz Leidenmühler, ‘Die freiwillige “Übererfüllung” unionsrechtlicher Vorgaben durch die Mitgliedstaaten. Ein Beitrag zur rechtsdogmatischen und rechtspolitischen Diskussion um das sog. “Gold Plating”’ (2019) 4 EuR 383.
Elena Buoso, ‘Prospektive und verifizierende Regelungsfolgenabschätzung sowie “Gold-Plating“-Verbot als allgemeine Strategie der Umsetzung des Unionsrechts in Italien’, Fraenkel-Haeberle, Socher, Sommermann, n 29, at 119.
Communication of the European Commission COM/2015/0215 final ‘Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda’(2015).
Communication from the Commission COM/2014/0368 final, ‘Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): State of Play and Outlook’ (2014) 6 f.
On this question, see more broadly Johannes Socher, ‘Annäherung nationaler Verwaltungssysteme trotz “no gold-plating”-Politiken?’, in Fraenkel-Haeberle, Galetta and Sommermann n 29, at 67.
See Melanie Payrhuber and Ulrich Stelkens, ‘1:1-Umsetzung von EU-Richtlinien: Rechtspflicht, rationales Politikkonzept oder (wirtschafts)politischer Populismus? – zugleich zu Unterschieden zwischen Rechtsangleichungs- und Deregulierungsrichtlien’ (2019) 2 EuR, 190.
Ibid at 190.
For a definition see Eva Julia Lohse, Rechtsangleichungsprozesse in der Europäischen Union (Mohr Siebeck2017) 109: “A legal transplant is any expression of a legal idea existing in a state that is adopted into another legal system voluntarily or due to actual or normative pressure from a legal system in which it previously and independently existed and also (mostly) continues to exist.”
Sommermann, n 29, at 325.
Payrhuber and Stelkens, n 41, at 201.
REFIT, n 39, at 7.
See on this point Lohse, n 43, at 360 ff.
Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1996) OJ L257/26 contained six system categories subject to the integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC). Italy added many other annexes with Legislative Decree no 128/2010 (Annex VIII).
A German example of exorbitant implementation of s 11 (1) of the EIA Directive is § 4 (1) Umweltrechtsbehelfsgesetz (UmwRG), according to which certain violations of the EIA regulations are classified as “absolute procedural errors” and are therefore not subject to the irrelevance regulation according to § 46 VwVfG. See Payrhuber and Stelkens, and also differences between legal approximation and deregulation directives, n 41, at 218.
Claus Dieter Classen, ‘Überschießende Effekte der Umsetzung von Richtlinien in den EU-Mitgliedsstaaten aus rechtlicher Perspektive’, in Fraenkel-Haeberle, Socher, Sommermann (eds.), n 29, at 293.
Anne-Christin Mittwoch, ‘Richtlinienkonforme Auslegung bei überschießender Umsetzung’ (2017) 4 JuS 296.
Classen, n 50, at 295.
Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up for certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice in Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (2003) OJ L156/17.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention), entered into force 30 October 2001, 2161 UNTS 447.
Classen, n 50, at 295.
Leidenmühler, n 36, at 393.
Lohse, n 43, at 566 ff.
Classen, n 50, at 300.
Leidenmühler, n 36, at 394.
Ibid at 398.
Karl-Peter Sommermann, ‘Veränderungen des nationalen Verwaltungsrechts unter europäischem Einfluss – Analyse aus deutscher Sicht’, in Jürgen Schwarze (ed.), Bestand und Perspektiven des Europäischen Verwaltungsrechts (Nomos 2008), 195.
Karl-Peter Sommermann, ‘Gemeineuropäische Verwaltungskultur als Gelingensbedingung Europäischer Integration?’ (2015) 11 DÖV, 449.
Leidenmühler, n 36, at 387
Margit Seckelmann, Wolfram Lamping, ‘Verhaltensökonomischer Experimentalismus im Politik-Labor – Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen und Folgerungen für die Evaluationsforschung’ (2016) 5 DÖV 189.
unece.org/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf> last accessed 19 September 2021.
See eg Hartmut Maurer and Christian Waldhoff, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht (C.H. Beck 2017) para 31; Bernhard Wegener, ‘Aktuelle Fragen der Umweltinformationsfreiheit’ (2015) 10 NVwZ 609.
Law regulating access to information (Gesetz zur Regelung des Zugangs zu Informationen des Bundes: Informationsfreieheitsgesetze – IFG) of 5 September 2005, Federal Law Journal I (BGBl I 2005), 2722.
With the exception of Bavaria and Lower Saxony, all German Länder enacted corresponding laws. Even local government statutes dealing with access to information were recently passed, for example the ‘Satzung zur Regelung des Zugangs zu Informationen in weisungsfreien Angelegenheiten der Stadt Leipzig – Informationsfreitssatzung – (IFS)’ of the city of Leipzig (Leipzig, 26 January 2013)2 Official Journal of the City of Leipzig 9; Roman Götze, ‘Aktuelle Entwicklungen im Umweltinformationsrecht, Landes- und Kommunalverwaltung’ (2013) 6 LKV 241 f.
Transparency Act of Hamburg (Hamburgisches Transparenzgesetz – HmbTG) of the city of Hamburg (Hamburg, 19 Juny 2012) 29 Official Journal for law and regulation of thy city Hamburg I 271.
Official Journal of Rhineland-Palatinate, 2015, p. 383.
Ibid, para 5, s 2.
Cristina Fraenkel-Haeberle and Johannes Socher, ‘Direct and indirect Europeanisation of national administrative systems. Implementation and spillover effects of the environmental information directives in a comparative perspective’ (2018) 56 Revista Catalana de Dret Public 125.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 c. 36, legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents last accessed 19 September 2021.
On the genesis of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, see Sebastian Roll, ‘Zugang zu Umweltinformationen und Freedom of Information‘ (Duncker&Humblot 2003), in particular 62–75 and 172–196.
Johannes Socher, ‘Die Umsetzung organisations- und verfahrensrechtlicher Vorgaben des Umweltrechts in Großbritannien’ (2017) in Fraenkel-Haeberle, Galetta, Sommermann (eds.), n 31, at 99; Karl-Peter Sommermann, ‘La exigencia de una Administración transparente en la perspectiva de los principios de democracia y del Estado de Derecho’ in Ricardo García Macho (ed.), Derecho administrativo de la información y administración transparente (Marcial Pons 2010).
See more extensively Diana-Urania Galetta, ‘Accesso civico e trasparenza della Pubblica Amministrazione alla luce delle (previste) modifiche alle disposizioni del Decreto Legislativo 33/2013’ (federalism.it, n 5, 2 March 2016) https://air.unimi.it/bitstream/2434/446537/2/SaggioTrasparenzaMadiaPubblSuFederalismi.pdf last accessed 22 August 2022; Diana-Uriana Galetta, ‘La trasparenza per un nuovo rapporto tra cittadino e la P.A.: un’analisi storico-evolutiva nella prospettiva di diritto comparato europeo’ (2016) 5 Rivista di diritto pubblico comparato 1019; Diana-Uriana Galetta, ‘The Italian Freedom of Information Act 2016. Why transparency-on-request is a better solution?’ (2016) 2 IJPL 268.
Legislative Decree no. 50/2016, art 22.
Nicola Posteraro, ‘Grandi opere e partecipazione democratica: alcune riflessioni sul dibattito pubblico italiano à la française’ (2020) 3 Istituzioni del Federalismo 607: regione.emilia-romagna.it/affari_ist/rivista_3_2020/Posteraro.pdf last accessed 21 September 2021.
Directives of the European Parliament and of the Council 2014/23/EU of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts Text with EEA relevance (2014) OJ L94/1, 2014/24/EU of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (2014) OJ L94/65 and 2014/25/EU of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (2014) OJ L 94/243.
Ruggiero Dipace, ‘Sviluppo sostenibile, prevenzione e precauzione nella disciplina dei lavori pubblici’ (2018) 18 IRIS Catalogo Istituzionale della Ricerca dell’Università degli Studi del Molise 278. The public debate regulation was implemented by Prime Ministerial Decree (D.P.C.M.) of 10 May 2018, which laid down the implementation rules, categories and quantitative thresholds. The National Commission for Public Debate will be established at the Ministry for Infrastructure and Transport; see Giacinto della Cananea, ‘Exit or voice? Débat public goes to Italy’ (2019) 2 European Public Law 157.
The initial Directive of the European Parliament 1985/335/EEC of 13 June 1985 granting a discharge to the Commission in respect of the financial management of the fifth European Development Fund during the 1983 financial year (1985) OJ L174/51 and its amendments were consolidated by Directive of the European Parliament and the Council 2011/92/EU of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment Text with EEA relevance (2011) OJ L26/1. Directive 2011/92/EU was amended by Directive of the European Parliament and the Council 2014/52/EU of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment Text with EEA relevance (2014) OJ L124/1.
Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1996) OJ L257/26, as amended by Directive of the European Parliament and the Council 2010/75/EU of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) Text with EEA relevance (2010) OJ L334/17.
See art 3 and 4 of Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2003/35/EC of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC - Statement by the Commission (2003) OJ L156/17.
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2001/42/EC of 27 June 2001 on assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, OJ L197/30 (SEA Directive).
Ibid, art 4 (3).
Ibid, art 5 (1).
Ibid, art 8.
Both are procedural norms. As with the EIA Directive, a distinction is made between mandatory SEA (§§ 14b (1), 14c UVPG) and conditional SEA (§ 14b (2), 14d (1) UVPG). Conditional SEA depends on a preliminary screening in individual cases. Like EIA, the SEA process is divided into the following steps: 1) definition of the scope of the investigation (scoping); 2) preparation of the environmental report with a view to the alternative assessment; 3) involvement of other authorities; 4) involvement of the public; 5) cross-border public and public participation; 6) announcement of the decision to accept or reject the plan or program; 7) monitoring (see Wilfried Erbguth and Sabine Schlacke, Umweltrecht (Nomos 2014), § 5, para 74.
Nicola Lugaresi, Diritto dell’ambiente (CEDAM 2015) 75.
Aarhus Convention, n 54, art 2 (4).
Ulrich Stelkens, ‘Der Eigenwert des Verfahrens im Verwaltungsrecht’ (2010) 17 DVBl 1078.
Rainer Wahl, ‘Verfahrensrecht zwischen Verwaltungseffizienz und Rechtsschutzauftrag’, (1983) 41 VVDStRL 151.
See more extensively Chien-Liang Lee, ‘Verfahrensrecht und Rechtsschutz im Wandel – dargestellt anhand der UVP im Rechtsvergleich’ (2019) 3 VerwArch 370
Directive 2010/75/EU, n 82.
Directive 2001/42/EG recital no 15, n 84.
Prevention (avoidance) of environmental damage is also addressed by Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability for the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, which prescribes the precautionary principle (avoidance activity) in art 5 (1), and in the event of immediate risk of such damage, commits the operator to taking the necessary mitigation measures. With regard to public participation, art 12 (1) of this directive provides that those who will be affected or are likely to be affected by the environmental damage, as well as those who claim ‘sufficient interest’ in environmental proceedings for fear of harm or infringement, may make observations to the competent authorities and may invite them to act in accordance with the Directive. Non-government organizations recognized under national law are considered to have sufficient interest. The procedural element and democratic participation in the risk management process are thus clearly visible; see on this point A. Barone, ‘The “Reflexive” Public Administration’, in Loredana Giani, Marina D’Orsogna and Aristide Police, Dal diritto dell’emergenza al diritto del rischio (Editoriale Scientifica 2018) 83.
See the EIA Directive 2014/52/EU, n 81, at art 10a and the IPPC Directive 2010/75/EU, n 82, at art 15a.
The concern is not defined individually but implemented by German legislation with introduction of the action of legally recognized associations (representatives of the public concerned) in the Environmental Action Act (Umweltrechtsbehelfsgesetz - UmwRG).
Johannes Masing, Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers zur Durchsetzung des Rechts (Duncker&Humblot ١٩٩٧), quoted by MatthiasRuffert, ‘Umweltrechtsschutz ohne methodische Grundlage? Zur neueren Rechtsprechung des EuGHs und ihren Folgen für Deutschland’ (١٦ (٢٠١٩ DVBl 1033.
Klaus Rennert, ‘Verwaltungsrechtsschutz auf dem Prüfstand’ (2017) 1 DVBl 69; Klaus Rennert, ‘Funktionswandel der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit’ (2015) 13 DVBl 793.
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327/1.
Björn Tänzer, ‘Aktuelle Entwicklungen bei der Umsetzung der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie’ (2017) 20 DÖV 868.
WFD, n 101, at art 11.
WFD, n 101, at art 13.
See more extensively Moritz Reese, ‘Die Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in der Umsetzungskrise’ (2018) 21 NVwZ 1592.
Case C-664/15 Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd (2017) ECLI:EU:C:2017:987 (hereinafter ECJ Protect).
Ibid, at para 68.
Regarding the ban on material preclusion, see also Case C-137/14, European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (2015), ECLI:EU:C:2015:683 and the comment of Birgit Peters, ‘Konvergenz der nationalen Verwaltungsverfahrensrechte durch europäische Einflüsse?’, in Fraenkel-Haeberle, Galetta and Sommermann, n 29, at 41 f; Claudio Franzius, ‘Genügt die Novelle des Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetzes den unionsrechtlichen Vorgaben?’ (2018) 4 NVwZ 219
ECJ (Protect), n 106, at para 71.
ECJ (Protect), n 106, at para 72 and 73.
Case C-240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky (2011), ECR 2011 I-01255 (hereinafter Slovak Brown Bear); in the second Slovak Brown Bear Case (Case C-243/15 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín, OJ C 6/16), the ECJ linked art 47 CFR with art 9(2) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention to ensure wide access to justice for an environmental organization recognized under the Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC. Thus the ECJ meant to preclude an interpretation of national procedural law rules, according to which an action against a decision refusing such an organisation the status of party to an administrative procedure for the authorisation of a project to be carried out on a site protected pursuant to art 6(3) of the Habitat Directive, does not necessarily have to be examined in the course of that procedure, which may be fully concluded before a definitive decision on the status of party.
Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz, republished on 23 August 2017 (BGBl. I p. 3290), which was last amended by art 8 of the law of 25 February 2021 (BGBl. I p. 306); Claudio Franzius, ‘Verbandsklage im Umweltrecht’ (2019) 41 Natur und Recht 649; Annette Guckelberger, ‘Aarhus-Konvention und Unionsrecht als prägende Faktoren für die Verbandsklage im UmwRG’ (2020) 42 Natur und Recht 149.
Case C-137/14, n 111.
Case C-115/09 Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen eV v Bezirksregierung Arnsberg (2011), ECLI:EU:C:2011:289; see Angela Schwerdtfeger, ‘Erweiterte Klagerechte für Umweltverbände – Anmerkung zum Urteil des EuGH v. 12.5.2011 in der Rechtssache Trianel’ (2012) 1 EuR80.
Case C–826/18 LB and Others v College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Echt-Susteren (2021) ECLI:EU:C:2021:7 (hereinafter Rechtbank Limburg); Dominik Römling, ‘EuGH, Urteil vom 14. Januar 2021 – Rs. C-826/18‘ (2021) 4 ZUR 229.
Ibid Rechtbank Limburg, para 59.
Leidenmühler, n 36, at 396.
Sommermann, n 30, at 322.
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2004/35/CE of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, OJ L 143/56.
See the last EIA amendment Directive 2014/52/EU, n 81.
Burkhard Schöbener and Matthias Knauff, Allgemeine Staatslehre (5th edition, C. H. Beck 2023), § 5, para 219.
BVerwGE 147, 312 (318 ff).
Bibliography
Barone A, ‘The “Reflexive” Public Administration’, in Loredana Giani, Marina D’Orsogna and Aristide Police (eds.), Dal diritto dell’emergenza al diritto del rischio (Editoriale Scientifica 2018).
Berkemann J, ‘“Freiheitschancen über die Generationen” (Art. 20a GG) – Intertemporaler Klimaschutz im Paradigmenwechsel’ (2021) 16 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 701.
Breuer R, ‘Immissionsschutzrechtliche Vorsorge und Stand der Technik’ (2016) 2 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 822.
Buoso E, ‘I principi di precauzione e prevenzione nel diritto ambientale’, in Simone Budelli (ed.), Società del rischio, Governo dell’emergenza (Vol. I, Ambientediritto Editore 2020).
Cappelletti M, Seccombe M and Weiler JH, ‘Integration through law: Europe and the American federal experience’, in Mauro Cappelletti, Monica Seccombe and Joseph H Weiler (eds.), Integration through Law (Vol. I, De Gruyter 1986).
Della Cananea G, ‘Exit or voice? Débat public goes to Italy’ (2019) 2 European Public Law 157.
De Leonardis F, ‘Tra precauzione, prevenzione e programmazione’, in Loredana Giani, Marina D‘Orsogna and Aristide Police (eds.), Dal diritto dell’emergenza al diritto del rischio (Editoriale Scientifica Napoli 2018).
De Petris A, ‘Protezione del clima e dimensione intertemporale delle libertà fondamentali: Karlsruhe for Future?’ (2021) 4 Ceridap 127.
Dipace R, ‘Sviluppo sostenibile, prevenzione e precauzione nella disciplina dei lavori pubblici’, in Loredana Giani, Marina D’Orsogna and Aristide Police (eds.), Dal diritto dell’emergenza al diritto del rischio (Editoriale Scientifica Napoli 2018).
Erbguth W and Schlacke S, Umweltrecht (Nomos 2014).
Fraenkel-Haeberle C, Galetta DU and Sommermann KP (eds.), Europäisierung und Internationalisierung im Vergleich: deutsch-italienische Analysen zur Denationalisierung der Öffentlichen Verwaltung (Duncker&Humblot 2017).
Fraenkel-Haeberle C, and Socher J, ‘Direct and indirect Europeanisation of national administrative systems. Implementation and spillover effects of the environmental information directives in a comparative perspective’ (2018) 56 Revista Catalana de Dret Public 125.
Fraenkel-Haeberle C, and Socher J and Sommermann KP (eds.), Praxis der Richtlinienumsetzung im Europäischen Verwaltungsverbund: die Reichweite der Umgestaltung der nationalen Umwelt- und Energieverwaltung (Duncker&Humblot 2020).
Franzius C, ‘Genügt die Novelle des Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetzes den unionsrechtlichen Vorgaben?’ (2018) 4 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 219.
Franzius C, ‘Verbandsklage im Umweltrecht’ (2019) 41 Natur und Recht 649.
Frenz W, ‘Klimaschutzpflichten als Grundrechtsvoraussetzungsschutz nach Klimabeschluss und Jahrhunderthochwasser’ (2021) 16 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 715.
Galetta DU, ‘Accesso civico e trasparenza della Pubblica Amministrazione alla luce delle (previste) modifiche alle disposizioni del D. Lgs. N. 33/2013’ (federalism.it, n5, 2 March 2016) https://air.unimi.it/bitstream/2434/446537/2/SaggioTrasparenzaMadiaPubblSuFederalismi.pdf last accessed 22 August 2022.
Galetta DU, ‘La trasparenza per un nuovo rapporto tra cittadino e la P.A.: un’analisi storico-evolutiva nella prospettiva di diritto comparato europeo’ (2016) 5 Rivista di diritto pubblico comparato 1019.
Galetta DU, ‘The Italian Freedom of Information Act 2016. Why transparency-on-request is a better solution?’ (2016) 2 Italian Journal of Public Law 268.
Giargiulo P, ‘Brevi riflessioni sulla natura giuridica e il contenuto dei principi di precauzione e di prevenzione nel diritto internazionale’, in Loredana Giani, Marina D‘Orsogna and Aristide Police (eds.), Dal diritto dell’emergenza al diritto del rischio (Editoriale Scientifica Napoli 2018).
Götze R, ‘Aktuelle Entwicklungen im Umweltinformationsrecht, Landes- und Kommunalverwaltung’ (2013) 6 Landes- und Kommunalverwaltung 241.
Guckelberger A, ‘Aarhus-Konvention und Unionsrecht als prägende Faktoren für die Verbandsklage im UmwRG’ (2020) 42 Natur und Recht 149.
Janda C, ‘Sozialstaat for Future – Der Klima-Beschluss des BVerfG und seine Bedeutung für die Sozialgesetzgebung’ (2021) 5 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 149.
Kahl W, ‘Staatsziel Nachhaltigkeit und Generationengerechtigkeit’ (2009) 1 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 2.
Kahl W, ‘“Soziale Gerechtigkeit” oder Generationengerechtigkeit? Zur Notwendigkeit der Wiederbelebung einer verfassungspolitischen Debatte aus aktuellem Anlass’ (2014) 1 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 1.
Leidenmühler F, ‘Die freiwillige “Übererfüllung” unionsrechtlicher Vorgaben durch die Mitgliedstaaten. Ein Beitrag zur rechtsdogmatischen und rechtspolitischen Diskussion um das sog. “Gold Plating”’ (2019) 4 Zeitschrift Europarecht 383.
Lohse EJ, Rechtsangleichungsprozesse in der Europäischen Union (Mohr Siebeck 2017).
Lugaresi N, Diritto dell’ambiente (CEDAM 2015).
Maceroni P, ‘L’organizzazione amministrativa del diritto ambientale’, in Paolo Dell’Anno and Eugenio Picozza (eds.), Trattato di diritto dell’ambiente (Vol. 2, CEDAM 2013).
Masing J, Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers zur Durchsetzung des Rechts (Duncker&Humblot 1997).
Maurer H and Waldhoff C, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht (C.H. Beck 2017).
Mittwoch AC, ‘Richtlinienkonforme Auslegung bei überschießender Umsetzung’ (2017) 10 JuristenZeitung 296.
Ossenbühl F, ‘Vorsorge als Rechtsprinzip im Gesundheits- Arbeits- und Umweltschutz’ (1986) 2 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 161.
Payrhuber M and Stelkens U, ‘1:1-Umsetzung von EU-Richtlinien: Rechtspflicht, rationales Politikkonzept oder (wirtschafts)politischer Populismus? – zugleich zu Unterschieden zwischen Rechtsangleichungs- und Deregulierungsrichtlien’ (2019) 2 Zeitschrift Europarecht 190.
Posteraro, ‘Grandi opere e partecipazione democratica: alcune riflessioni sul dibattito pubblico italiano à la française’ (2020) 3 Istituzioni del Federalismo 607.
Reese M, ‘Die Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in der Umsetzungskrise’ (2018) 21 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 1592.
Rennert K, ‘Funktionswandel der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit’ (2015) 13 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 793.
Rennert K, ‘Verwaltungsrechtsschutz auf dem Prüfstand’ (2017) 1 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 69.
Roll S, Zugang zu Umweltinformationen und Freedom of Information (Duncker&Humblot 2003).
Ruffert M, ‘Umweltrechtsschutz ohne methodische Grundlage? Zur neueren Rechtsprechung des EuGHs und ihren Folgen für Deutschland’ (2019) 16 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1033.
Schenke WR, Polizei- und Ordnungsrecht (10th ed., C.F. Müller 2018).
Schöbener B and Knauff M, Allgemeine Staatslehre (5th edition, C.H. Beck 2023).
Schwarze J, ‘Richtlinienumsetzung ‚eins zu eins’, in Rainer Pitschas et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Rupert Scholz zum 70. Geburtstag (Duncker&Humblot 2007).
Seckelmann M and Lamping W, ‘Verhaltensökonomischer Experimentalismus im Politik-Labor – Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen und Folgerungen für die Evaluationsforschung’ (2016) 5 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 189.
Siedentopf H and Ziller J, Making European policies work. The implementation of Community legislation in the member states, Volume 2: National Reports (SAGE Publications Ltd 1988).
Sommermann KP, Staatsziele und Staatszielbestimmungen (Mohr Siebeck 1997).
Sommermann KP, ‘Veränderungen des nationalen Verwaltungsrechts unter europäischem Einfluss – Analyse aus deutscher Sicht’, in Jürgen Schwarze (ed.), Bestand und Perspektiven des Europäischen Verwaltungsrechts (Nomos 2008).
Sommermann KP, ‘La exigencia de una Administración transparente en la perspectiva de los principios de democracia y del Estado de Derecho’, in Ricardo García Macho (ed.), Derecho administrativo de la información y administración transparente (Marcial Pons 2010).
Sommermann KP, ‘Gemeineuropäische Verwaltungskultur als Gelingensbedingung Europäischer Integration’ (2015) 11 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 449.
Sommermann KP, and Fraenkel-Haeberle C, ‘L’Unione Europea come comunità di implementazione - Strategie nazionali di recepimento delle direttive europee’ (2021) 2 Ceridap 111.
Stelkens U, ‘Der Eigenwert des Verfahrens im Verwaltungsrecht’ (2010) 17 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1078.
Stelkens U, and Payrhuber M, ‘Gold-Plating bei der Umsetzung der Dienstleistungsrichtlinie durch extensive Auslegung des § 42a VwVfG? Vom Rechtsvergleich als Instrument zur Bestimmung des Ziels einer Richtlinie’ (2018) 4 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 195.
Tänzer B, ‘Aktuelle Entwicklungen bei der Umsetzung der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie’ (2017) 20 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 867.
Vauchez A, ‘Integration-through-law. Contribution to a socio-history of EU political commonsense’ (2008) EUI Working Papers RSCAS 2008/10.
Voßkuhle A, ‘Umweltschutz und Grundgesetz’ (2013) 1 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 1.
Wahl R, ‘Verfahrensrecht zwischen Verwaltungseffizienz und Rechtsschutzauftrag’ (1983) 41 VVDStRL 151.
Wegener B, ‘Aktuelle Fragen der Umweltinformationsfreiheit’ (2015) 10 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 609.
Winter G, ‘Ökologische Verhältnismäßigkeit’ (2013) 7–8 Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 387.
Wolf R, ‘Das Bundesverfassungsgericht – Hüter der Umwelt?’ (1984) 3 Kritische Justiz 239.