Public Participation in Environmental Matters:
introduction, three cases, funding
Dr. Volker MAUERHOFER MAS, MSc, MA (Leeds)
Specially Appointed Researcher, Osaka University, Osaka/Japan
Examiner & Theses Supervisor, University of Vienna, Austria

volker.mauerhofer@gmx.at
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/volker.mauerhofer/Tokyo Bar Association, Arhus Network, 13th Dec 2017

Some background on me• >20 years post-doctorate working experience in~55 countries on six continents• ISDRS Board Member and Auditor• Austrian Man & Biosphere Committee Member• (Managing Guest)Editor for edited volumes withElsevier and Springer (two ongoing)• Former positions e.g.: Senior Research Fellow &Visiting Professor/UNU Japan; IPBES
Coordinating Lead Author; attorney-at-law
Arhus Network, Tokyo,
13. Dec. 2017 © Volker
Mauerhofer

Outline of today‘s presentation
1. part: Introduction: Principle X, Arhus
Convention & national Austrian context
2. part: Some current casesa. ACCC/EU versus AT: Nature NGO Arhus rights
b. EU & AT: Arhus rights from Water Framework
Directive (WFD)?
c. Airport Vienna: third runway permit?

3. part: Financing of NGOs & Civil Society
Initiatives: example Civil Society Initiatives
Fonds/Austria
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec. 2017 © Volker
Mauerhofer

PART 1: Introduction: Principle X, Arhus
Convention & national Austrian context

Timeline• 1992 Rio/UN Conference on Environment andDevelopment: Principle X Rio Declaration– access to information– opportunity to participate in decision-making processes– effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings,including redress and remedy• 1998: UN Economic Commission for Europe:
Aarhus Convention (+ Compliance Committee!)– 2001: rights concretised & in force for (meanwhile) 47 parties– 2005: ratified also by EU ( Court of Justice of EU!!) + Austria• 2003/2004: EU/Austria  Implementation in
especially Environmental impact assessment
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec. 2017 © Volker Mauerhofer

https://www.unece.org/env/pp/aarhus
ap.html (20.11.2017)

Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec. 2017 © Volker Mauerhofer
http://doku.cac.at/accc2011_rel.pdf

Regional & national overview globally
Access to pillar: ⊗ widely; Ø essentially; O basically; – almost not addressed

Access toEurope

America

AfricaAsia

Oceania

EU Non-EU NorthLatin

WestEastSouthWest

East

SouthEast

Info/regionalØOØOØOO-Dec.mak/regional
Justice/regional

OOOOO

Ø

OO-

-----

Ø

---

Info/
national







Ø

OOØØØØ



Dec.mak/national



Ø

OO

Ø

ØØ

Ø



Justice/national







Ø

OO

ØØØ

Ø



Arhus Network, Tokyo,
13. Dec. 2017 © Volker
Mauerhofer(Mauerhofer 2016)

As part of a Special Issue(NOCH EINFÜGENLUP 2016 (52) 477-561
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec. 2017 © Volker Mauerhofer

PART 2: SOME CURRENT CASES
a. ACCC/EU versus AT: Nature NGO Arhus rights
b. EU & AT: Arhus rights from Water Framework
Directive (WFD)?
c. Airport Vienna: third runway permit?

Overview on the three cases in thetransnational legal context
Geo-political scaleInternational

Acts+implementation organs
Agreements + „Tribunals“e.g. UNECE Aarhus Konvention/ACCC

EU
e.g. Acts transposing the Arhus
Convention, Conservation
Directives by the EU

National(central/federal)

EU-Law+EU-Courts
B.
A.
C.

Laws ------------ > Courts &Administration
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec.
2017 © Volker Mauerhofer

A. Chronology: ACCC/EU versus
AT: Conservation NGO rights
2012-12: Findings of ACCC/C/2010/48  Non-compliance ofAustria with Art. 9/3 Arhus Convention concerning„Access to Justice“ for NGOs
2014-07: Infringement procedure Nr. 2014/4111 startet by EUCommission against Austria due to NGO-complaint(conservation, water, air, waste & Art. 9/3 Arhus Conv.
(2016-11: C-243/15: judgement of Court of Justice of EU in
preliminary ruling procedure against state neighbouring
Austria: Environmental NGO have„Access to Justice“ inconservation procedures of EU-Habitat-Directive basedon Art. 47 der EU Fundamental Rights-Charta together
with Art. 9/2 and 9/4 & Art. 6/1/b Arhus Convention
STATUS: EU-Commission perhaps still awaits C-664/15 (B.)
Arhus Network,Tokyo, 13. Dec.
2017 © Volker
Mauerhofer

But in Vienna: Draft for conservation
law revision 2016 sent for negotiations
to Viennese legilative body (C-243/15!)© GHEU/EuG© GHEU/EuG

ACCC/C/2010/48

Onpage 2
ACCC/C/4111
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec.
2017 © Volker Mauerhofer

EU (2014/4111)

B. EU & AT: Arhus rights from WFD (C-664/15)?

Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec.
2017 © Volker Mauerhofer

Chronology: C-664/15
2012: Conservation permit for water extraction from river for ski lift
2013: Procedure based on Water Act (Environmental-NGO applies forlegal standing based on Art. 6/3 Habitats-Directive & Art. 9/3
Arhus-Convention)2013-11: Permit based on Water Act granted (WFD); standing denied
2014: NGO-remedy by provincial administrative court rejected due to„water related objections not raised already during procedures“
2015: NGO-remedy to Supreme Adminstrative Court: standing basedon WFD & Art. 9/3 Arhus-Convention & legal interest expressed
2015-11: Supreme Adminstrative Court asked CJEU for preliminaryruling2017-10: Advocat General at CJEU recommended to follow thearguments of NGO  no foreclosure if arguments are notbrought forward in administrative procedures
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec.
2017 © Volker Mauerhofer

C. Airport Vienna: third runway permit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOpbnjEyQ
P0
http://systemchange-notclimatechange.at/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/Dritte_Pi
ste-Wien-Uebe rlagerung1024x546.png

Arhus Network,Tokyo, 13. Dec.
2017 © VolkerMauerhofer

Chronology third runway
2007/03 Application according to EIA- EnvironmentalImpact-Assessment Act forwarded in order to
get aviation permit granted.
2012/07 Aviation permit granted by provincial authority
acting as EIA-authority.
2017/2 Federal Administrative Court rejects theapplication to build the third runway in theframe of neighbours‘ remedy
2017/6 Constitutional Court annulled the judgement ofthe Federal Administrative Court due to a
remedy of the Applicant
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec.
2017 © Volker Mauerhofer

Federal Administrative CourtReasoning• Reasons for the construction: additional need for flightconnections and thereby an improvement of the business location as
well as enhanced supply with traffic infrastructure + additional jobs.
• But: in federal & provincial constitutions specific primacy is stated for„comprehensive environmental protection“, in particular climateprotection. Also Article 37 EU Charta on Fundamental Rights statesa high level of environmental protection.
• Through climate change are to be expected: heavy health damages+ additional death causalities due to heat + heavy negative effects
on the Austrian economy & agro-economy + significant increase ofgreenhouse gas emmissions.
• In total the public interest prevails on no further significant increaseof greenhouse gases. Also the maintenance of valuable agriculturalland for the food supply of future generations is urgently needed.
(own translation)
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec. 2017 © Volker Mauerhofer

Constitutional Court – reasoning• Violation of the right on equality (repeated misconceiving of
the rule of law/„despotism“)• Inclusion of the „comprehensive environmental protection“ intothe interpretation & valuation of the public interests
administered by the Aviation Act is indeed demanded; but noabsolute primacy of environmental interests;• Wrongful diagnosis concerning the increase of CO2-Emissions• Despotic use of not direcly applicable legal sources/of norms
not applicable for emissions from aviation for the appraisal ofemissions diagnosed• Rough misconceiving of the rule of law through added
inclusion of „climate protection“ and „soil use“ into theweighting of interests(own translation)
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec.
2017 © Volker MauerhoferOwn final comments• Constitutional Court: uses in the interpretation,
which public interest are administered by theAviation Act, mainly an old judgement from 1970of the Supreme Administrative Court• Constitutional Court: does not use a newjudgement from 1991 where in the – 1984 newly
introduced – constitutional „comprehensive
environmental protection“ has been given
absolute primacy in a similar Aviation Act case.
• Federal Administrative Court: could ask for apreliminary ruling at CJEU if deemed necessary
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec.
2017 © Volker Mauerhofer

PART 3: Financing of NGOs & Civil SocietyInitiatives: example Civil Society Initiatives
Fonds/Austria

Civil Society Initiatives Fonds/Austria• Since 2001 administered by Green-Alternative Association
for the Support of Civil Society Initiatives (from Oct 2017:only finishes ongoing support)• Financed by certain share from salaries of MEPs (Membersof Paliarments) of the Austrian Green Party (in Austria/EU)• Available: ~60.000 €/year http://www.buergerinitiativen.at/• Supported: Civil Society Initiatives & NGO court procedures• Procurement criteria:– Issues of country-wide importance– Chances of success• Conclusion of a support contract:– Transparency (annual reports online)– Reclaim by the Fonds e.g. in case of win
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec.
2017 © Volker Mauerhofer

Extension of a quarry(project of ~51 ha subject to an EIA) Civil Society Association„Livable Strasshof“, 1.100 signatures
1. Instance• Attorney fees (statement)€ 388,00• Public negotiation€ 2.090,00• Cost of medical expertise on air pollution substance & noise: € 2.040,00
2. Instance• Attorney fee: Remedy€ 2.570,00• Additional attorney pleading€ 360,00• Statement€ 840,00• Statement€ 360,00• Cost of conservation & forestry expertise€ 4.020,00• Statement to public expertise (2nd instance)€ 1.440,00• Further statements€ 1.080,00
Total:€ 15.188,00• Complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court raised, but not co-funded.
• Also not co-funded: action of trespass & media-law based admin.penalty proc..
• Co-funded by Fonds: in total € 8.880,00
Source: Presentation of M. Meyer, Green Parliament Club, EIA-Meeting Linz, 03/2009
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec.
2017 © Volker Mauerhofer(own translation)

Example: construction & use of
two river hydro-power dams
Gössendorf und Kalsdorf

Subject to EIA according to national EIA-Act• Three NGO’s (incl. WWF Austria)
Source:Presentation of M.
• Attorney fees:– Remedy€ 1.440,00– Complaint (S.Admin Court) € 3.220,00

Meyer, Green
Parliament Club,
EIA-Meeting Linz,
03/2009• Total costs:€ 4.660,00• Costs of 8 expertises used during first instanceprocedures have not been handed in with theFonds for co-funding.
• Co-funding by Fonds at that stage: € 1.540,00
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec.
2017 © Volker Mauerhofer(own translation)

Acknowledgements• Participants of International workshop &symposium held at 18th-19th March 2013 atUNU-IAS in Yokohama/Japan for helpfulcomments• UNU-IAS for financial support of that workshop• Research interns– Simeng Wang for the intensive assistance during theliterature check,– Marlen Krause for a careful proof-read and– Nicolas Ouellette for a detailed review of the English.
Arhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec.
2017 © Volker Mauerhofer

Thank you for your attention!

Anyquestions?
Correspondence to: volker.mauerhofer@gmx.atArhus Network, Tokyo, 13. Dec. 2017 © Volker Mauerhofer