¹ This paper forms part of a broader inquiry about the implications of internationalisation for the power division within the EU legal order and the position of individuals: Outside-In: Tracing The Imprint of the European Union's External Actions on Its Constitutional Landscape, funded by the Dutch Science Foundation, NWO. For a short description, see http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/fellows/12-13/ChristinaEckes.html.Google Scholar

² For instance, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 11, 1997, 2303 U.N.T.S. 148. For more details on the 2008 EU Climate Change package, see http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm.Google Scholar

³ Prominent examples include Kyoto Protocol, supra note 2; Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, June 25, 1998, 2161 U.N.T.S. 447 [hereinafter Aarhus Convention]; Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, May 22, 2001, 2256 U.N.T.S. 119 [hereinafter Stockholm Convention]; Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79; Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Jan. 29, 2000 2226 U.N.T.S. 208; and Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Oct. 29, 2010, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/1. For an overview, see http://treaties.un.org.Google Scholar

⁴ See Scott, Joanne, From Brussels with Love: The Transatlantic Travels of European Law and the Chemistry of Regulatory Attraction, 57 Am. J. Comp. L. 897 (2009); Scott, Joanne & Rajamani, Lavanya, EU Climate Change Unilateralism, 23 Eur. J. Int'l L. 469 (2012); Zito, Anthony, The European Union as an Environmental Leader in a Global Environment, 2 Globalizations 363 (2005); Joana Chiavari, Sirini Withana & Pallemaerts, Marc, The Role of the EU in Attempting to ‘Green’ the ICAO, EcologicInstitute, EPIGOV Paper No. 35 (2008). See also, Eckes, Christina, EU Climate Change Policy: Can the Union Be Just (and) Green?, in European Union's Shaping of the International Legal Order (Fabian Amtenbrink & Dimitry Kochenov, eds.) (forthcoming 2013).Google Scholar

⁵ Case C-366/10, Air Transp. Ass'n of Am. v. Sec'y of State for Energy & Climate Change, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-366/10&td=ALL (Dec. 21, 2011).Google Scholar

⁶ See also Treaty on European Union pmbl., Feb. 7, 1992, 1992 O.J. (C 191) [hereinafter TEU].Google Scholar

⁷ See also the link between the internal market and environmental matters in TEU, supra note 6, at art. 3(3) and Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 114(3)-(5), Sept. 5, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

⁸ See TFEU art. 4(2)(e).Google Scholar

⁹ See TFEU art. 191(1).Google Scholar

¹⁰ The Court of Justice of the European Union [hereinafter CJEU] has ruled in five cases concerning the Aarhus Convention in the past three years: Case C-182/10, Marie-Noëlle Solvay & Others v. Région wallonne, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-182-10&td=ALL (Feb. 16, 2012); Case C-524/09, Ville de Lyon v. Caisse des dépôts et consignations, 2010 E.C.R. I-14115 [hereinafter Ville de Lyon case]; Case C-266/09, Stichting Natuur en Milieu & Others, 2010 E.C.R. I-13119; Case C-240/09, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v. Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-240/09&td=ALL (Mar. 8, 2011) [hereinafter Slovak Bears case].Google Scholar

As of 7 September 2012, four more cases are pending before the CJEU: Case C-605/11P, Fin. v. Liga para Protecção da Natureza (LPN), 2012 O.J. (C 58/4); Case C-530/11, Comm'n v. U.K., 2012 O.J. (C 39/7); Case C-260/11, Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 25 May 2011-Regina, on the application of David Edwards & Another v. Envtl. Agency & Others, 2011 O.J. (C-226/16); Case C-416/10, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Slovak Republic lodged on 23 August 2010—Jozef Križan & Others v. Slovenská inšpekcia životného prostredia, 2010 O.J. (C 301/11).Google Scholar

The General Court has decided two cases concerning the Aarhus Convention: Case T-396/09, Vereniging Milieudefensie und Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v. Comm'n, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=T-396/09&td=ALL (June 14, 2012); Case T-338/08, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Eur. v. Comm'n, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=T-338/08&td=ALL (June 14, 2012). It also mentions the Aarhus Convention in two previous cases: Case T-264/04, WWF Eur. Policy Programme v. Council, 2007 E.C.R. II-00911 [hereinafter WWF case]; Case T-37/04, Região autónoma dos Açores v. Council, 2008 E.C.R. II-00103.Google Scholar

¹¹ See, e.g., Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, http://www.swift.com; Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st12/st12196.en11.pdf; Areas of Freedom, Security and Justice, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/index_en.htm [hereinafter AFSJ]. As to the AFSJ: Wyn Rees, Cooperation on Counter-Terrorism and the Internationalisation of Law Enforcement, in The External Dimension of the European Union's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice 389 (Marise Cremona et al., 2011); Marise Cremona, Justice and Home Affairs in a Globalised World: Ambitions and Reality in the Tale of the EU-U.S. SWIFT Agreement, sec. 4 (Inst. for European Integration Research, Working Paper No. 4/2011, 2011); Christina Eckes et al., International, European and U.S. Perspectives on the Negotiation and Adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Currents: Int'l Trade L.J. (forthcoming 2013).Google Scholar

¹² See United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Introduction to the Aarhus Convention, http://www.unece.org/env/pp/introduction.html.Google Scholar

¹³ For the document of ratification, see Council Decision 2005/370, 2005 O.J. (L 124) 1 (EU).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Case C-6/03, Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe, 2005 E.C.R. I-2753, paras. 61-64.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Jan H. Jans & Hans H.B. Vedder, European Environmental Law: After Lisbon 59 (2012).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Opinion 2/91 Convention No 170 of the Int'l Labour Org. concerning safety in the use of chemicals at work (1993) ECR I-1061, par. 18.Google Scholar

¹⁷ For an overview of international environmental agreements to which the EU is a Party or a Signatory, see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/international_issues/agreements_en.htm. On the consequences of concluding mixed agreements, see Mixed Agreements Revisited: The EU and its Member States in the World (Christophe Hillion & Panos Koutrakos, eds., 2010).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Eckes, Christina, International Law as Law of the EU: The Role of the ECJ, in International Law as Law of the European Union, 353 (Enzo Cannizzaro, Paolo Palchetti & Ramses A. Wessel, eds., 2011).Google Scholar

¹⁹ E.g., Case C-411/06, Comm'n v. Parliament & Council, 2009 E.C.R. I-7585, para. 46.Google Scholar

²⁰ See e.g., Case C-178/03, Comm'n v. EP & Council, 2006 E.C.R. I-00107.Google Scholar

²¹ See e.g., Commission Regulation 842/2006, 2006 O.J. (L 161) 1; Council Directive 2006/66, 2006 O.J. (L 266) 1.Google Scholar

²² The combined legal basis of Articles 192(1) and 207 is possible. See Case C-178/03, Comm'n v. EP & Council, 2006 E.C.R. I-00107, paras. 58-59. However, it remains rather exceptional, see e.g., Council Regulation 3254/91, 1991 O.J. (L 308) 1.Google Scholar

²³ Case C-62/88, EP v. Council, 1990 E.C.R. I-1527 [hereinafter Chernobyl I case]; Opinion 2/00 Cartagena Protocol, (2001) E.C.R. I-9713; Case C-281/01, Comm'n v. Council, 2002 E.C.R. I-12049 [hereinafter Energy Star Agreement case]; Case C-94/03, Comm'n v. Council, 2006 E.C.R. I-00001 [hereinafter Rotterdam Convention case].Google Scholar

²⁴ Energy Star Agreement case paras. 40-41.Google Scholar

²⁵ Rotterdam Convention case.Google Scholar

²⁶ Id. at para. 50.Google Scholar

²⁷ Id. Google Scholar

²⁸ Opinion 2/00 Cartagena Protocol, supra note 23. The Cartagena Protocol was negotiated under the Convention on Biological Diversity. It governs the trans-boundary movement of living biotechnologically modified organisms that might have adverse effects on the conservation and on biological diversity.Google Scholar

²⁹ Case C-411/06, Comm'n v. Parliament & Council, 2009 E.C.R. I-7585.Google Scholar

³⁰ “Since the objective of the proposed action, namely the establishment of a link between the Kyoto project-based mechanisms and the Community scheme, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting individually, and can therefore by reason of the scale and effects of this action be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty.” Council Directive 2004/101, para. 19, 2004 O.J. L (338) 18 (amending EC Directive 2003/87).Google Scholar

³¹ “Since the objectives of this Directive, namely the incorporation of the international ship-source pollution standards into Community law and the establishment of penalties—criminal or administrative—for violation of them in order to ensure a high level of safety and environmental protection in maritime transport, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty.” Council Directive 2005/35, para. 15, 2005 O.J. L (255) 11.Google Scholar

³² Opinion 2/91, supra note 16.Google Scholar

³³ Case C-246/07, Comm'n v. Sweden, 2010 E.C.R. I-3317 [hereinafter PFOS case]. Marise Cremona, Case C-246/07, Commission v. Sweden (PFOS), Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 20 April 2010, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1639 (2011).Google Scholar

³⁴ Cremona asks this question. See supra note 33, at 1640. See also two cases on transport agreements for inland waterways on the same issue: Case C-519/03, Comm'n v. Lux., 2005 E.C.R. I-3067; Case C-433/03, Comm'n v. Ger., 2005 E.C.R. I-6985.Google Scholar

³⁵ PFOS case at para. 49 (opinion of Advocate Gen. Maduro).Google Scholar

³⁶ Id. at para. 51.Google Scholar

³⁷ Cremona, supra note 33, at 1640.Google Scholar

³⁸ PFOS case at para. 56 (opinion of Advocate Gen. Maduro).Google Scholar

³⁹ PFOS case at para. 101.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Id. para. 103.Google Scholar

⁴¹ In PFOS, both the Advocate General and the Court paid attention to this, see id. para. 93.Google Scholar

⁴² Id. para. 102.Google Scholar

⁴³ Cremona, supra note 33, at n. 111. This is Marise Cremona's reading of the Commission's comments on the Council's position.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Council Directive 85/337, 1985 O.J. (L 175) 40 (EEC); Council Directive 90/313, 1990 O.J. (L 158) 56 (EEC).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Council Directive 90/313, 1990 O.J. (L 158) 56 (EEC). See also Ludwig Krämer, Access to Environmental Information in an Open European Society—Directive 2003/4/EC, 4 Y.B. Eur. Envtl. L. 1, 2 (2004).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ecko Forum, (Nov. 9, 2012), http://www.ekoforum.org.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Council Directive 2003/4, 2003 O.J. (L 41) 26 (EC).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Council Directive 2003/35, 2003 O.J. (L 156) 17 (EC).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Council Regulation 1367/2006, 2006 O.J. (L 264) 1 (EC).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Case C-71/10, Office of Commc'ns v. Info. Comm'r, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-71/10 (July 28, 2011) [hereinafter Info Comm'r case] (opinion of Advocate Gen. Kokott), (“Article 3(1) of the Environmental Information Directive provides that public authorities are required to make available environmental information held by or for them to any applicant at his request and without his having to state an interest. This right was introduced in 1990 by the first Environmental Information Directive. The Aarhus Convention developed it further and it has now been adopted by the Environmental Information Directive currently applicable.”).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Hallo, Ralph, Access to Environmental Information, in The Aarhus Convention at Ten: Interactions and Tensions Between Conventional International Law and EU Environmental Law 55, 61 (Marc Pallemaerts ed., 2011).Google Scholar

⁵² Council Directive 2003/35, 2003 O.J. (L 156) 17 (EC). See also Council Directive 85/337, 1985 O.J. (L 175) 40 (EEC), amended by Council Directive 2009/31, 2009 O.J. (L 140) 114 (EC); Council Directive 2008/1, 2008 O.J. (L 24) 8 (EC), amended by Council Directive 2009/31, 2009 O.J. (L 140) 114 (EC).Google Scholar

⁵³ Council Regulation 1367/2006, 2006 O.J. (L 264) 1 (EC).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, COM (2003) 624 final (Oct. 24, 2003). The proposal did not find a majority in the Council.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Council Regulation 1049/2001, 2001 O.J. 2001 (L 145) 43 (EC).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Hallo, supra note 51, at 63-66.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Slovak Bears; WWF. Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See supra note 10. In the national context, France sticks out with five cases in 2011 concerning the Aarhus Convention.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Council Directive 2003/87, 2003 O.J. (L 275) 32 (EC).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Ville de Lyon (trading emission allowances); Info. Comm'r (mobile phone base).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Slovak Bears. See Damian Krawczyk, Case Note: The Slovak Brown Bear Case: The ECJ Hunts for Jurisdiction and Environmental Plaintiffs Gain the Trophy, 14 Envtl. L. Rev. 53 (2012).Google Scholar

⁶² Slovak Bears, (opinion of Advocate Gen. Kokott), para. 56.Google Scholar

⁶³ Slovak Bears, para. 30.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Id. para. 32-52.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Id. para. 32.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ This has been the case ever since the Court's decision in Case 22/70, Comm'n v. Council, 1971 E.C.R. 263. See id. para. 19.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Council Directive 92/43, 1992 O.J. (L 206) 7 (EEC).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Slovak Bears, para. 38.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the Conclusion, on Behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 2005 O.J. (L 124) 1.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Slovak Bears, para. 40 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Id. para. 42.Google Scholar

⁷² Id. para. 43.Google Scholar

⁷³ Case C-431/05, Merck Genéricos Produtos Farmaceuticos v. Merck & Co., 2007 E.C.R. I-7001.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Slovak Bears para. 40 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Jans & Vedder, supra note 15, at 74. Jans and Vedder speak of it rendering the declaration “obsolete and useless.”Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Christian Walter, Internationalisierung des deutschen und Europaeischen Verwaltungsverfahrens- und Verwaltungsprozessrechts—am Beispiel der Aarhus Konvention, 40 Europarecht [Eur] 302, 316 (2005) (arguing with regard to the particular example of the Aarhus Convention that substantive and procedural law can no longer be separated).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Slovak Bears (opinion of Advocate Gen. Kokott), para. 70.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See id. para. 77.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Those Member States are Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Case C-263/08, Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening v. Stockholms kommun genom dess marknämnd, 2009 E.C.R. I-9967.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Council Directive 85/337, 1985 O.J. (L 175) 40 (EEC), amended by Council Directive 2003/35, 2003 O.J. (L 156) 17 (EC).Google Scholar

⁸² Case C-115/09, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen eV v. Bezirksregierung Arnsberg, 2011, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-115/09.Google Scholar

⁸³ Wolfgang Durner & Martin Paus, Die erweiterten Klagerechte der Umweltverbände in der verwaltungsgerichtlichen Praxis, 34 Natur und Recht [NuR] 325, 325 (2012).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Id. Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Case T-338/08, Stichting Natuur en Milieu v. Comm'n, 2012, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-338/08.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ For a take on the “dark side” of litigation, albeit in a slightly different context, see Case C-427/07, Comm'n v. Ir., 2009 E.C.R. I-6277 (opinion of Advocate Gen. Kokott), para. 69.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Pallemaerts, Marc, Access to Environmental Justice at EU Level. Has the “Aarhus Regulation” Improved the Situation?, in The Aarhus Convention at Ten: Interactions and Tensions Between Conventional International Law and EU Environmental, 271 (Marc Pallemaerts ed., 2011).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See also the pending case of Case C-605/11P, Appeal brought on 29 November 2011 by Republic of Finland against the judgment delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-29/08, Liga para Protecção da Natureza (LPN) v Comm'n, O.J. 2012 C 58/4.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See Ville de Lyon. Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See Ville de Lyon, (opinion of Advocate Gen. Kokott), para. 37.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Id. para. 42.Google Scholar

⁹² Id. para. 64.Google Scholar

⁹³ Id. Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Id. Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See Mueller, Bilun, Access to the Courts of the Member States for NGOs in Environmental Matters under European Union Law: Judgment of the Court of 12 May 2011, Case C-115/09 Trianel and Judgment of 8 March 2011, Case C-240/09, Lesoochranarske Zoskupenie, 23 J. Envtl L. 505 (2011), making a double-standard argument. See also, Silvia Pernice-Warnke, Der Zugang zu Gericht in Umweltangelegenheiten fuer Individualklaeger und Verbaende gemaess Art. 9 Abs. 3 Aarhus-Konvention und seine Umsetzung durch die europaeische Gemeinschaft, 43 Europarecht [Eur] 410, 415 (2008).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Case Law of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (2004-2008) (Andriy Andrusevych, Thomas Alge & Clemens Konrad eds., 2008).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters art. 15, June 25, 1998, 2161 U.N.T.S. 447.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ U.N. Econ. Comm'n for Eur., Guidance Document on the Aarhus Convention Compliance Mechanism, http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/CC_GuidanceDocument.pdf.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Case C-192/89, Sevince v. van Justitie, 1990 E.C.R. I-3461.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Eckes, Christina, The European Court of Justice and (Quasi-) Judicial Bodies of International Organizations, in The Influence of International Organizations in the EU (Ramses A. Wessel & Steven Blockmans, eds.) (forthcoming).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ U.N. Econ. Comm'n for Eur., Findings and Recommendations of the Compliance Committee with Regard to Communication ACC/C/2008/32 (Part I) Concerning Compliance by the European Union (Apr. 14, 2011) http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/C2008-32/DRF/C32Findings27April2011.pdf [hereinafter Findings and Recommendations]. See also Charles Poncelet, Access to Justice in Environmental Matters: Does the European Union Comply with its Obligations?, 24 J. Envtl L. 287 (2012); Teresa Weber, Die Umsetzung der Aarhus-Konvention beim direkten Vollzug von Unionsrecht, 20 J. für Rechtspolitik [JRP] 137 (2012).Google Scholar

¹⁰² Joined Cases T-236/04 & T-241/04, Eur. Envtl. Bureau & Stichting Natuur en Milieu v. Comm'n, 2005 E.C.R. II-4945.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See Case T-37/04, Região autónoma dos Açores v. Council, 2008 E.C.R. II-00103; Case C-444/08, Região autónoma dos Açores v. Council, 2009 E.C.R. I-200.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Case T-338/08, Stichting Natuur en Milieu v. Comm'n, 2012, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-338/08.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ See T-91/07, WWF-UK Ltd. v. Council, 2008 E.C.R. II-81; C-355/08, WWF-UK Ltd. v. Council, 2009 E.C.R. I-73.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ See Findings and Recommendations, supra note 101, para. 7Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ See id. para. 10. See also Case C-115/09, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen eV v. Bezirksregierung Arnsberg, 2011, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-115/09 (opinion of Advocate Gen. Sharpston), para. 28 (referring to the pending case before the ACCC).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See Findings and Recommendations, supra note 101, paras. 59, 63.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See Findings and Recommendations, supra note 101, para. 88.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ See Findings and Recommendations, supra note 101, paras. 97-98.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ See Slovak Bears. Google Scholar

¹¹² For an account of the different receptions of the ECHR in Germany, the UK and the Netherlands, see Christina Eckes, EU Accession to the ECHR: Between Autonomy and Adaptation, Mod. L. R. (forthcoming 2013).Google Scholar