Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:309
Date: 2014-05-08
Language of the case: Dutch
Subject matter: Environment
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Appeal - successful
Origin: United Kingdom;Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 13 January 2015 1. Appeals — Grounds — Heads of claim seeking a substitution of grounds — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 169(1) and 178(1)) 2. International agreements — European Union agreements — Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus Convention) — Effects — Primacy over acts of secondary EU legislation — Examination of the legality of an act of secondary EU legislation in the light of the provisions of that convention — Conditions — Provisions not unconditional and sufficiently precise — Not included (Art. 300(7) EC (now Art. 216(2) TFEU); (Aarhus Convention, Art. 9(3); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006, Art. 10(1)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 30-32) 2. Pursuant to Article 300(7) EC (now Article 216(2) TFEU), international agreements concluded by the European Union bind its institutions and consequently prevail over the acts laid down by those institutions. Nevertheless, the provisions of an international agreement to which the European Union is a party can be relied on in support of an action for annulment of an act of secondary EU legislation or an exception based on the illegality of such an act only where, first, the nature and the broad logic of that agreement do not preclude it and, secondly, those provisions appear, as regards their content, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise. With regard to Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, that article does not contain any unconditional and sufficiently precise obligation capable of directly regulating the legal position of individuals and therefore does not meet those conditions. It follows that that provision cannot be relied on before the EU judicature for the purposes of assessing the legality of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention to European Community institutions and bodies. It is true that the Court has also held that, where the European Union intends to implement a particular obligation assumed in the context of the agreements concluded in the context of the World Trade Organisation or where the EU act at issue refers explicitly to specific provisions of those agreements, the Court should review the legality of the act at issue and the acts adopted for its implementation in the light of the rules of those agreements. However, those two exceptions were justified solely by the particularities of the agreements that led to their application and cannot, in the absence of such particularities, be deemed relevant for determining whether Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention can be relied on before the EU judicature for the purposes of assessing the legality of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006. (see paras 44, 46-50, 60)