In the light of new case law development, this article examines whether national restrictions on the on-line sale of pharmaceuticals and medical devices such as contact lenses are consistent either with EU secondary law, either with Article 34 TFEU that prohibits measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports. In particular, this article focuses on an analysis of two judgments on this important issue delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2003 and 2010, namely the Deutscher Apothekerverband decision and the Ker-Optika decision.
The principle of subsidiarity is a fundamental principle of the European Union. It has first been introduced in the field of environmental policy by the Single European Act in 1987 and extended to all fields of shared competencies by the Maastricht treaty in 1992. Since then much has been done to operationalize the principle, and subsidiarity has received increasing attention by the Union’s institutions and Member States. The following contribution provides a brief appraisal of the role of the principle and of how it has influenced environmental legislation, so far.
So far, EU treaty law does not encapsulate any individually justiciable rights to a clean environment or to health. The article explores whether individuals can rely on the environmental duties embodied in the European Union Charter of Human Rights (EUCHR), and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in cases falling within the scope of EU environmental law. Moreover, it takes a close examination of the case law of both the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the standing of individuals whose environment is impaired.
The term biodiversity itself was not coined until the 198os, when it was popularised by the eminent Harvard biologist Wilson. Biodiversity entails at the macro level ecosystemic diversity (ecosystems and landscapes), specific diversity (the species of plants, animals and micro-organisms that surround us) and at the micro level it includes genetic diversity. Although less marked than on other continents, Europe's systemic diversity displays a number of particular characteristics. However, Europeans should seriously fear for the future of their wildlife. Indeed, many wild fauna and flora species today are passing through a period of major crisis. As most natural or semi-natural, continental and coastal ecosystems are now undergoing significant modifications as a result of human activity (fiagmentation, isolation, intensification, ... ), animal and plant species are suffering an unprecedented rate of extinction. To make matters worse, this negative trend is compounded by an array of additional threats (poaching, excessive hunting, disturbance inflicted by tourism, collision of birds with power-lines). Last, on a more global scale, global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer risk precipitating much more profound changes to the distribution, structure and functions of European ecosystems. Given that this issue has been identified as a pressing concern by the EC institutions, the aim of the present article is to highlight the different strategies, plans and programs as well as the main directives and regulations that were enacted with the aim of conserving biodiversity.
With a view to overcoming the shortcomings of “negative harmonisation”, the EU lawmaker has been adopting different directives requiring the Member States to notify to the Commission their draft regulations setting technical standards before their enactment. The aim of this article is to shed the light on two internal market preventive procedures: Directive 98/34 on the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulation and Regulation 764/2008/EC relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State. In particular, the paper assesses the manner in which the directive and the regulation are likely to impinge on the enactment of national environmental measures.
Thanks to the ets, the largest carbon market in the world has been created. Whilst pursuing ambitious objectives, this market has been subject to a considerable number of imperfections. The success of the ets is dependent upon a progressive reduction of the individual emissions allocated by the Member State to the various installations, which implies first and foremost a sparing allocation of allowances with the aim of encouraging undertakings to invest in less polluting technologies. However, since the outset, the carbon market has suffered from an over-abundance of allowances granted by the Member States. Due to the unsatisfactory nature of the temporary freeze of allowances, the eu lawmaker sought to re-establish an incentive price signal by adopting decision (eu) 2015/1814 of 6 October 2015, which created the msr that will become operational in 2019.
The authorities regularly have to cross swords with businesses on the issue as to whether a given substance has been completely recovered in order to escape the Caudine Forks of waste law. So far, it has been settled case law that national lawmakers could not adopt a definition of the notion of waste that would exclude objects and substances capable of commercial re-use. However, economic operators consider that the relatively broad definition of waste under Union law does not embrace all of the special features of their economic activities. By adopting the new Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, the EU lawmaker sought to tailor the Directive’s scope in the best possible manner, in particular in providing for new arrangements under which certain classes of waste cease to be classified as such. In effect, in virtue of its Article 6 (1) and (2), certain specified waste shall cease to be waste when it has undergone a recovery operation and complies with specific criteria. Such criteria should be set for specific materials by the Commission in comitology. In this connection, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No. 333/2011 on certain types of scrap metal which sets forth the criteria which make it possible to determine the time when certain types of scrap metal—iron, steel and aluminium—cease to be waste within the meaning of Directive 2008/98/EC where such scrap is intended for the metal production in steelworks, foundries and aluminium refiners. It is the aim of this article to explore some of the questions that the first regulation to implement Article 6 of the Directive is likely to raise.