On Tuesday the evening of 22 June, European Parliament negotiators, led by Christian Doleschal (EPP, Germany), the Portuguese Council Presidency and the European Commission, made some progress in their talks on the proposed amendment to EU regulation 1367/2006 to improve public access to justice in environmental matters, thereby complying with the international Aarhus Convention (case ACCC/C/2008/32), while respecting the EU’s legal order (see EUROPE 12742/19).
The second ‘trilogue’, lasting just over 2 hours, focused on extending members of the public’s ability to challenge an administrative act of an EU institution or body, beyond just NGOs (see EUROPE 12731/5). It also allowed for preliminary discussions on the elements of an overall compromise. However, there is still a lot of work to be done at technical level before the third trilogue on 12 July, which everyone hopes will be conclusive.
An EU source told EUROPE “the atmosphere was constructive. There is a willingness around the table to reach an agreement quickly, despite the fact that some differences of opinion do remain”.
Extension of standing to members of the public. The negotiators discussed the question of what criteria - either qualitative or quantitative, or a combination of both - could be established.
Quantitative means, for example, a number of citizens from a certain number of Member States that would be required to bring about action. A qualitative criterion would be, for example, to require that the link between an administrative act infringing environmental law and direct damage to the rights of the citizens challenging it be demonstrated when the damage has been established in only one Member State.
It will also be necessary to determine whether the citizen will be able to act alone in court or whether they will receive judicial representation from a lawyer or NGO. The European Parliament does not want these criteria to be too restrictive (see EUROPE 12723/20).
A Commission proposal on all these aspects will be discussed at technical level.
State Aid. This was not discussed, as there were differing views over whether it should be included in any amended regulation. Although the European Parliament has been very insistent on this point, it is, at this stage, opposed by a majority in the EU Council, who want a prior impact assessment, which is currently absent from the European Commission’s proposal.
Acts requiring national enforcement measures. The EU Council is against their inclusion, however the European Parliament is very insistent.
Procedural costs. The EU Council could show flexibility towards the European Parliament’s demand that these costs be affordable, however this would only be possible in the context of a global agreement.
Access to information on the positions taken by Member States during their decision-making. The EU Council considers that European Parliament’s demands go beyond access to environmental information. The European Parliament will clarify, at a technical level, the type of documents concerned and when they should be published. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)