Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2017:781
Date: 2017-10-19
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Environment
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Ireland

Summary Report on the inventory of EU Member States’ measures on access to justice in environmental matters by Milieu Ltd for the Commission’s DG Environment, September 2007, pp. 4 to 6; Darpö, J., Effective Justice? Synthesis report of the study on the Implementation of Articles 9.3 and 9.4 of the Aarhus Convention in the Member States of the European Union (European Commission), 2013.10.11/Final, pp. 11 and 12. See also Pallemaerts, M., (ed), The Aarhus Convention at Ten, Interactions and Tensions between Conventional International Law and EU Environmental Law, Europa Law Publishing, 2011, pp. 322, 343 and 349. 48 See also judgment of 16 February 2012, Solvay and Others (C‑182/10, EU:C:2012:82, paragraph 38). 49 For similar issues arising in a different area of law — public procurement, see judgment of 5 April 2017, Marina del Mediterráneo and Others(C‑391/15, EU:C:2017:268, paragraphs 26 and 27). 50 See points 44 to 46 of this Opinion. 51 See, again by analogy, judgment of 5 April 2017, Marina del Mediterráneo and Others(C‑391/15, EU:C:2017:268, paragraphs 26 to 32). 52 See above in points 44 to 48, 58 to 60, and 89. 53 As also referred to in point 58, see judgment of 11 April 2013, Edwards and Pallikaropoulos(C‑260/11, EU:C:2013:221, paragraph 42). 54 Judgment of 17 July 1998, ITT Promedia v Commission (T‑111/96, EU:T:1998:183). 55 United Nations Treaty Collection, Declarations and Reservations of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters – declarations formulated by the European Union upon approval (available at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-13&chapter=27&clang=_en#EndDec). 56 Which then potentially opens up another layer of complexity, intriguing but yet again beyond the scope of the present case: if indeed an application were to be brought which falls under Article 9(3) of the Convention and outside of what the Union could have implemented into the EU legal order by adopting the Directive, then the potential applicability of the Convention for those questions within the Irish legal order would not be governed by EU law, but by the Irish constitutional rules on the legal effects of international treaties in that national legal order. If that were the case, then the Court would in any case have no jurisdiction to answer the two questions referred.