8 Application of the Aarhus Convention
to Community institutions and bodies
| (25009)
14152/03
COM(03) 622
| Draft Regulation on the application of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to EC institutions and bodies.
|
| Legal base | Article 175(1)EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 24 October 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 10 November 2003
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 19 November 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnotes
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
8.1 The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation
in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters
(the Aarhus Convention) was signed by the Community and Member
States in June 1998. Since then, two Directives[34]
have been adopted by the Community, as part of the process leading
to its implementation of the Convention, and we have reported
separately (paragraph 7 above) on a proposal to enact the necessary
provisions dealing with access to justice.
The current document
8.2 The purpose of this proposal — which, according to the
Commission, needs to be adopted before the Community can ratify
the Convention — is to ensure that the Community's institutions
and bodies comply with the relevant provisions. In particular,
it would:
- allow public access to environmental information held within
Community institutions and bodies (subject to specific grounds
for non-disclosure);
- allow the public to participate in the activities
of Community institutions and bodies in the preparation of plans
and programmes relating to the environment;
- entitle "qualified entities" —
defined essentially as non-profit environmental organisations
active at Community level — to request an internal review
of decisions taken by Community institutions or bodies which they
consider to be in breach of environmental law.
8.3 The Commission suggests that the term Community
institution or body should not be confined to those in Article
7 of the Treaty, but should be extended to include all such bodies
which perform public functions (and thus, for instance, include
the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the
Regions, the Court of Auditors, and the European Investment Bank).
On the other hand, its definition of qualified entity would exclude
national organisations, as well as those active in fewer than
three Member States, and would explicitly deny the right of access
to natural or legal persons, except in so far as this is conferred
by Articles 230 and 232 of the EC Treaty[35]
on those directly affected by an act or decision. To the extent
that this last exclusion would deny natural or legal persons without
a direct interest a right at Community level which it is proposing
they should be given in relation to comparable national bodies,
the Commission justifies this on the grounds that such a course
would have implied the need for an amendment to Articles 230 and
232.
The Government's view
8.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 19 November
2003, the Minister of State (Environment and Agri-Environment)
at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr
Elliot Morley) says that the UK welcomes this proposal, and believes
that it is entirely appropriate that Community institutions and
bodies should meet the requirements of the Aarhus Convention in
the areas in question, not least because this would send a strong
signal to the international community on sustainable development.
He also comments that it is logical that this proposal should
apply exclusively to such institutions and not to Member States
which, as signatories to the Convention and subject to existing
Directives on Convention matters, are bound by alternative legislation.
Conclusion
8.5 It is clearly right that legislative action
should be taken to apply the relevant provisions of the Aarhus
Convention to Community bodies and institutions. However, we
note that, in such cases, access to justice, notably for organisations
not active at Community level, and for natural and legal persons
without a direct interest in a particular act, would be
narrower than that proposed in relation to public authorities
within Member States. Since the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum
is silent on these differences, we would like to know whether
the UK is content with them, and with the explanation given by
the Commission. In the meantime, we will continue to hold the
document under scrutiny.
34 Directive 2003/4/EC OJ No. L. 41, 14.2.03, p.26.
(21459) 10004/00; see HC 23-xxvii (1999-2000), paragraph 9
(25 October 2000), HC 152-i (2001-02), paragraph 35 (18 July 2001)
and HC 152-xxxvii (2001-02), paragraph 9 (17 July 2002). Directive
2003/35/EC OJ No. L.156, 25.6.03, p.17. (22098) 5657/01; see
HC 28-xi (2000-01), paragraph 14 (4 April 2001). Back
35
Article 230 provides for the Court of Justice to review the
legality of acts adopted by the European Parliament and Council,
the Commission and European Central Bank, and includes a provision
allowing any natural or legal person to institute proceedings
against a decision addressed to them, or which is of direct and
individual concern to them. Article 232 makes similar provisions,
where the European Parliament, Council or Commission, in infringement
of the Treaty, has failed to act within two months of having been
called upon to do so. Back
|
