Transcript Recent developments on Access to Justice in environmental matters in Sweden – Joanna Cornelius.

Recent developments on Access to Justice in
environmental matters in Sweden – Joanna Cornelius
Access to Justice in Environmental
matters in Sweden
• Access to justice in the Environmental Code
• Access to justice for environmental issues outside the
code
• Jurisprudence on Access to Justice regarding decisions
on hunting of protected species and forestry
Joanna Cornelius
2
Access to justice – Environmental
Code (1998:808)
Environmental Code Chapter 16 Section 13
”Appeals may be made against judgments or decisions concerning permits,
approvals and exemptions issued according to this Code …”
“by non-profit associations whose purpose according to their statutes is to
promote nature conservation or environmental protection
interests. The right of appeal against judgments and decisions shall
be subject to the requirement that the association has operated in
Sweden for at least three years and has not less than 100
members or can show public support.”
Note also CJEU C-24/09 and the Supreme Court of Sweden NJA 2012 s.
921
Joanna Cornelius
3
Access to justice – Administrative law
Administrative Procedure Act (1986:223) Sec. 22
• Standing to challenge administrative decisions in Sweden is generally
limited to parties with an interest in the case, those whom the
administrative decision concerns and adversely affects
• New jurisprudence from the Administrative Courts
Joanna Cornelius
4
Hunting of protected species
- Decisions on hunting of wolves under the Hunting ordinance
- Wolves are protected under Swedish law, as well as under
international and EU law.
- Supreme Administrative Court (decisions in case 7943-11 & 2687-11)
- Administrative Court of Appeal in Stockholm (judgement in case 439012 & 4396-12)
Joanna Cornelius
5
Findings of the Supreme Administrative
Court & the Administrative Court of Appeal
Supreme Administrative Court
• Noted that Article 9.3 of the Aarhus Convention grants the public the right to
challenge acts and omissions that violate national environmental law.
• Referred to the Slovak Brown Bear Case (C-240/09) and the Courts lack of
precedent on the right of environmental NGOs to appeal these kind of
decisions
• Ordered the Stockholm Administrative Court of Appeal to hear the case.
Joanna Cornelius
6
Findings of the Supreme Administrative
Court & the Administrative Court of Appeal
Administrative Court of Appeal
• Observed that the Swedish legislation so far have been applied so that in practise it has
been no possibility to bring cases on hunting of wolves to court, as no one has had the
right to appeal the decisions.
• Established that a decision of hunting of a genetically valuable wolf have significance for
nature protection and concerns such effect on the environment that the Aarhus
Convention covers.
• Applied the Slovak Brown Bear Case, that establish that national procedural law must
be interpreted so to give effect to Union law.
• Swedish administrative law must be interpreted in such a way it that is possible for
environmental organizations to challenge in court administrative decisions that conflict
with EU environmental law.
• Determined that the lower court had erred in denying standing.
Joanna Cornelius
7
Forestry in areas of valuable virgin
forests
• Forest legislation
• Permit of clear cutting in virgin forests in Änok, in area of national
interest, North of Sweden
• Supreme Court of Appeal granted access to justice (Judgement 14
february 2014 case 5962-12)
Joanna Cornelius
8
Findings of the Supreme
Administrative Court
• National law relating to the environment.
• The permit on forestry is covered by Article 9.3 of the Aarhus Convention.
• To secure effective access rights for the public in accordance with the
obligations of the Aarhus Convention the decisions should be seen a
concern of the environmental organisation.
• Granted the organisation the right to appeal the decisions.
Joanna Cornelius
9
Thank you for your attention!
[email protected]