Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on access to justice in environmental matters
Date: 2003-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: access to the courts, environmental protection, international convention, right of action

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 24.10.2003
COM(2003) 624 final

2003/0246 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on access to justice in environmental matters

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.

JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSAL

1.1.

General considerations

This  proposal  for  a  directive  on  access  to  justice  in  environmental  matters  covers  a  double
objective.  Firstly,  it  will  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  the  UN/ECE  Convention  on
Access  to  information,  Public  Participation  in  Decision-making  and  Access  to  Justice  in
Environmental Matters (hereinafter named  Århus  Convention).  Secondly, it will  fulfil  some
shortcomings in controlling the application of environmental law.

The Århus Convention, signed by the European Community and its Member States in 25 June
1998,  consists  of  three  pillars.  The  first  pillar  grants  the  public  the  right  of  access  to
environmental  information.  The  second  grants  the  right  to  take  part  in  decision-making
processes. Finally, the third pillar grants the public access to justice, i.e. the right to recourse
to administrative or judicial procedures to dispute acts and omissions of private persons and
public  authorities  violating  the  provisions  of  environmental  law.  Contributing  to  the
implementation  of  the  Århus  Convention,  two  directives  have  been  adopted:  Directive
2003/4/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  January  2003  on  public
access  to  environmental  information  and  repealing  Council  Directive  90/313/EEC1  and
Directive  2003/35/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  May  2003
providing  for  public  participation  in  respect  of  the  drawing  up  of  certain  plans  and
programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and
access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC2.

Furthermore, the objective of this proposal for a directive is to eliminate shortcomings in the
enforcement  of  environmental  law.  These  shortcomings  have  been  demonstrated  for
numerous  years3.  At  European  Union  level,  the  importance  of  public  participation  in
enforcing environmental law was stressed on several occasions4. These shortcomings are due
to, among other things, the lack of a financial private interest in enforcing environmental law,
in  contrast  to  other  areas  of  Community  law  where  economic  operators  require  the  correct
application  of  legislation,  such  as  internal  market  and  competition.  Moreover,  the  failure  to
fully enforce environmental laws can distort the functioning of the internal market by creating
unequal terms of economic competition for the economic operators. Thus, depending on the
Member State concerned, the economic operators in non-compliance with their environmental
obligations may receive an economic advantage over those that respect environmental law.

1

2

3

4

OJ L 41, 14. 2.2003, p.26
OJ L 156, 25.6.2003, p.17
See European Commission, Implementation of  Community  law  –  Communication  to  the  Council  and
the European Parliament, COM (96) 500. First annual survey on the implementation and enforcement
of  Community  environmental  law,  SEC  (1999)  592  of  27.04.1999.  Second  annual  survey  on  the
implementation  of  Community  environmental  law,  SEC  (2000)  1219  of  13.07.2000.  Third  annual
survey on the implementation Community environmental law, SEC (2002) 1041 of 01.10.2002.
See  Decision  1600/2002/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  July  2002,  laying
down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1.

2

                                                
Consequently, the enforcement of environmental law primarily falls on public authorities and
depends  on  numerous  factors  such  as  the  resources  at  their  disposal,  or  the  political
importance  attached  to  the  enforcement  of  environmental  protection.  Resulting  differences
create considerable disparities between the systems of Member States and consequently result
in  different  levels  of  environmental  protection  being  applied.  Notably,  these  disparities
frequently cause conflicts between Member States, especially when considering the protection
of international water-courses, air quality, or cross-border emissions of polluting substances.

In addition, the lack of enforcement of environmental law is too frequently due to the fact that
legal standing is limited to persons directly affected by the infringement. A way of improving
enforcement  is  hence  to  ensure  that  representative  associations  seeking  to  protect  the
environment  have  access  to  administrative  or  judicial  procedures  in  environmental  matters.
Practical experience gained from granting legal standing to environmental non-governmental
organisations indicates that this can enhance the implementation of environmental law.

1.2.

Environmental objectives to be achieved

Article 2 of the EC Treaty provides that the Commission’s mission, inter alia, is to promote a
high level of environmental protection and quality improvement. Therefore, the Community,
under  Article  3(1)  of  the  EC  Treaty,  must  implement  an  environmental  legal  policy  that
contributes  to  the  pursuit  of  the  following  objectives  emphasised  by  Article  174  of  the  EC
Treaty:

preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment,

protecting human health,

prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources,

promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or world-wide environmental
problems.

The  purpose  of  this  proposal  is  to  strengthen  the  enforcement  of  environmental  law,  and
therefore, environmental protection. Effective enforcement is crucial if environmental law is
not to be a question of theory, but a matter of practice. Moreover, environmental law will only
produce  the  desired  effects  if  its  enforcement  is  possible  throughout  the  European  Union.
Hence,  by  ensuring  the  conformity  of  Community  law  with  the  provisions  of  the  Århus
Convention, the proposal facilitates ratification of this Convention by the Community.

2.

CHOICE AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE LEGAL BASIS

As highlighted above, the proposal facilitates the Community environmental policy objectives
defined in Article 174 of the EC Treaty. Therefore, the proposal is founded on Article 175(1)
of the Treaty.

3

3.

3.1.

SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

Objectives  of  the  action  proposed  in  relation  to  the  obligations  of  the
Community

By signing the Århus Convention, the Community demonstrated its commitment to improving
the  effectiveness  of  its  environmental  policy  primarily  increasing  public  awareness  and
participation in the decision making process. As a result of the signature and in order to ratify
the Convention, the Community is obliged to align its legislation to the requirements of that
Convention.  In  line  with this, the ratification  of the Århus Convention  is  a  political  priority
for the Commission.

The  obligations  imposed  on  the  European  Community  by  the  signature  of  the  Århus
Convention justify by themselves a legally binding instrument on the issue "access to justice
in environmental matters". The Community will only be able to fulfil these obligations if it is
able to  ensure  that  citizens  and  non-governmental  organisations  have  the  required  access  to
justice as far as the Community law is concerned. To be able to grant these rights in a uniform
way  throughout  the  European  Union,  the  Community  has  to  set  out  a  common  minimum
framework that applies to all Member States.

Furthermore, under Article 2 of the EC Treaty, a Community task is the promotion of a high
level  of  environmental  protection  and  quality  improvement.  According  to  Article  175(1)  of
the  EC  Treaty,  the  European  Community  is  competent  to  act  as  is  necessary  to  ensure  the
achievement  of  the  objectives  of  Article  174  of  the  EC  Treaty.  Thus,  the  Community  has
developed a considerable acquis in the environmental field. It is also the Community task to
create  the  conditions  to  ensure  that  this  acquis  is  being  applied,  and  hence  to  enact  the
necessary procedural provisions.

This proposed directive aims at a better enforcement of environmental law in order to  fulfil
the existing shortcomings. Better access to justice in environmental matters for representative
groups  advocating  environmental  protection  will  have  numerous  positive  effects,  the  most
significant being a general improvement of the practical application of environmental law. In
practice, access to justice is likely to be sought only as a last resort, hence contributing to the
enforcement of environmental law. Given that, environmental law will have its desired effects
only if its enforcement is guaranteed throughout the whole Union, it is absolutely  crucial to
ensure that the observance of environmental law can be reviewed in court.

With  the  enlargement  of  the  European  Union  these  aspects  gain  even  greater  importance.
Thus, instruments aiming at the enforcement of environmental law will no doubt also lead to a
better implementation of the aquis communautaire in the accession countries.

3.2.

What is the Community dimension of the problem?

The  proposal  follows  the  process  of  restructuring  the  approach  of  public  authorities  to
openness and transparency that started with the Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990
on the freedom of access to information on the environment  5, and was further developed by
other instruments. The most recent development is Directive 2003/35/EC providing for public
participation  in  respect  of  the  drawing  up  of  certain  plans  and  programmes  concerning  the
environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Directives
85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC.

5 

OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p.56.

4

                                                
Essentially,  this  process  comes  from  the  European  Community’s  obligation  to  align
Community  environmental  law  with  the  provisions  of  the  Århus  Convention.  Improving
conditions  for  access  to  environmental  justice  in  environmental  matters  satisfies  the  third
pillar  of  the  Convention,  and  will  facilitate  ratification  of  the  Århus  Convention  by  the
European Community.

Moreover,  the  proposed  directive  aims  to  compensate  for  existing  shortcomings  in  the
application  of  environmental  law.  While  the  Community  legislative  efforts  have  mainly
focussed  on  a  change  of  substantive  environmental  law,  procedural  provisions  and
mechanisms to ensure effective application of environmental law differ considerably between
Member  States.  This,  together  with  other  factors,  has  led  to  considerable  differences  in  the
practical application of environmental law.

3.3.

What  is  the  most  effective  solution,  comparing  the  means  available  to  the
Member States and the Community?

A  Community  legal  instrument  that  will  set  out  a  common  framework  of  procedural
provisions to be applied in a uniform way to all Member States is necessary for the following
reasons:

The  signature  of  the  Århus  Convention  imposes  on  the  European  Union  the  obligation  to
ensure  that  access  to  justice  in  environmental  matters  is  granted.  In  the  light  of  the  very
uneven situation in  Member States as concerns compliance  with  environmental  law  and  the
disparate  state  of  enforcement,  the  need  for  action  at  Community  level  to  guarantee  the
objectives of the Århus Convention becomes evident.

An  action  at  Community  level  is  also  required  because  of  the  transboundary  dimension  of
environmental  problems.  Only  Community  action  can  guarantee  the  uniform  application  of
environmental  law.  These  aspects  will  increase  in  importance  with  the  enlargement  of  the
European Union.

The proposed directive establishes a general framework for access to justice in environmental
matters, and,  in  order to respect the principle  of subsidiarity,  requires the Member States to
develop the details of the framework. The framework focuses in particular on access to justice
concerning  acts  or  omissions  by  public  authorities,  given  that  this  is  an  area  where
harmonised approach at Community level has most added value. In relation to possible action
against  private  persons,  which  is  also  aimed  at  Article  9(3)  of  the  Århus  Convention,  the
proposed directive stipulates the objective, leaving it to Member States to set up appropriate
criteria for related access to justice under their national law.

3.4.

What will be the Community’s inaction cost?

Community inaction in relation to the implementation of the "access to justice" pillar means
that  it  will  not  be  able  to  comply  with  its  international  obligations.  It  would  prevent  the
Community  from  ratifying  the  Århus  Convention,  with  a  resulting  lack  of  credibility  at
international  level.  In  this  way,  the  credibility  of  the  Community  with  respect  to  good
governance would also be at stake.

As  the  proposal  aims  at  setting  out  a  common  framework  for  Member  States  to  ensure  the
respect  of  environmental  law,  Community  inaction  will  result  in  different  levels  of
environmental  protection  and  different  standards  of  environmental  law  enforcement  at
Member State level.

5

3.5.

Which instruments are at the  disposal of the  Community in  order  to  meet  the
objective?

The  Sixth  Community  Environmental  Action  Programme  calls  for  the  development  of  new
Community  legislation  and  a  more  effective  implementation  in  order  to  achieve  its  goals.
Hence,  the  Action  Programme  recognises  the  need  to  strengthen  measures  to  improve
compliance  with  Community  rules  on  environmental  protection,  and  to  fight  against  the
violation of environmental law.

To  achieve  these  goals,  the  Commission  services  has  discussed  and  weighed  up  different
options:

–  No Community action: No obvious arguments have been found in favour of such
course of action, since the lack of a common instrument on this issue has shown
the  existing  shortcomings  in  controlling  the  application  of  environmental  law.
There  are  evident  arguments  against  Community  inaction.  Firstly,  the  inaction
would  not  enable  the  Community  to  ratify  the  Århus  Convention  and
consequently the overall impact of the Convention would be weakened. Secondly,
the lack of a  common  framework  has involved  different  levels of  environmental
protection and  different standards  of  environmental  law  enforcement  at  Member
States level that distort the functioning of the internal market by creating unequal
conditions for economic competition in Member States. Finally, disparities in the
application of environmental law can also cause conflicts between Member States,
especially  when  considering  the  protection  of  international  watercourse,  air
quality, or cross border emissions of polluting substances.

–  Recommendation on review procedures in environmental matters. A non-binding
instrument  would  have  the  same  consequences  as  the  lack  of  any  Community
action since it would not enable the Community to ensure the correct observance
of environmental law throughout its territory.

–  Directive on review procedures in environmental matters. Only a legally binding
instrument will enable full ratification of the Århus Convention by the European
Community  and  at  the  same  time  guarantee  the  correct  application  of
environmental  law.  In  accordance  with  Article  249  of  the  EC  Treaty  a  directive
shall be binding as to the result to be achieved by each Member State. From this
point  of  view  a  directive  will  promote  a  high  level  of  environmental  protection;
and  a better  enforcement and  practical  application  of  Community  environmental
law in the EU and the accession countries alike.

3.6.

Proportionality

The  proposed  directive  establishes  the  minimum  conditions  of  access  to  administrative  or
judicial proceedings  in environmental matters. Moreover, the proposal explicitly  sets up  the
criteria  capable  of  ensuring  improved  implementation  of  environmental  law  with  the
minimum impact possible.

The  common  framework  proposed  is  based  on  the  need  both  to  implement  the  Århus
Convention's  provisions  on  access  to  justice,  and  to  respect  the  administrative  and  judicial
structures in the Member States. To do so, the proposal defines the following issues:

6

(cid:1)  In  relation  to  access  to  justice  regarding  acts  and  omissions  by  private  persons
contravening  environmental  law,  the  proposal  calls  upon  Member  States  to
establish the appropriate criteria to meet the obligations under Article 9(3) of the
Convention.

(cid:1)  In relation to acts and omissions by public authorities and in accordance with the
Århus  Convention,  the  proposal  aims  at  the  enforcement  of  Community
environmental law by granting  review proceedings. Such proceedings shall meet
the following characteristics:

(cid:1)  Acts  and  omissions  by  a  public  authority  shall  be  subject  to  a  procedural  and
substantive  review.  These  acts  shall  be  submitted  to  review  where  they  have
legally binding and external effect, excluding acts which have been adopted as a
legislative instrument.

(cid:1)  The review of acts and omissions shall be based on a two tiered approach. Prior to
starting  environmental  proceedings,  entities  and  members  of  the  public  having
legal standing shall first have to give notice to the public authority designated in
accordance  with  national  law,  to  allow  for  the  administrative  act  or  omission
being reconsidered. .

(cid:1)  Members of the public and qualified entities shall have access to administrative or
judicial  review  proceedings  to  challenge  acts  and  omissions  which  contravene
provisions of environmental law. The proposed directive sets out a framework of
minimum  standards  on  legal  standing  that  allows  maintaining  national  systems
providing for a broader legal standing.

4.

COSTS  OF  IMPLEMENTING  THE  PROPOSAL  FOR  THE  MEMBER
STATES

First, it must be recalled that the proposal aims to put Community law in line with the Århus
Convention.  At  present,  certain  Member  States  have  either  ratified  the  Convention  or
announced  their  intention  to  ratify  it  as  soon  as  possible.  Under  the  terms  laid  down  in  the
Convention  all  Member  States  have  therefore  committed  themselves  to  take  the  necessary
measures to grant access to justice in environmental matters.

Likewise, all Member States have in their constitutional systems, judicial and administrative
structures  to  ensure  the  correct  application  of  their  legal  systems.  Hence,  the  structures  as
such  already  exist  in  the  Member  States.  To  a  minor  extent  Member  States  may  incur
additional  costs  because  the  recognition  of  environmental  NGOs  foreseen  by  the  present
proposal  places  some  administrative  burden  on  them.  Minor  additional  costs  may  also  be
incurred  by  the  judiciary  due  to  a  potential  increase  of  legal  proceedings  in  environmental
matters.  However,  given  past  experience  only  a  small  increase  of  proceedings  in
environmental matters in relation to the  total  number of  legal proceedings  is to be  expected
and  any  additional  case  load  can  be  handled  within  the  framework  of  existing  judicial
systems.

Another  reason  why  no  heavier  burden  will  be  placed  on  the  judiciary  is  that  the  proposal
provides for preliminary review by the competent public authorities. In this regard the public
body may be burdened with additional expenses but it will be possible to handle these within
the framework of existing administrative structures.

7

On the other hand, substantial benefits for the public will be reaped from the new instrument.
It is to be expected that because of broader possibilities for filing a complaint the operators
and  the  public  authorities  will  comply  with  environmental  provisions  in  order  to  avert
enforcement orders that would create additional costs for them. It is to be assumed that by this
preventive effect, expenditures for public authorities in the field of environmental protection
will  be  substantially  reduced.  Prevention  of  environmentally  harmful  activities  creates
positive  budgetary  repercussions  associated  with  distributing  the  economic  burden  of
repairing  and  compensating  for  environmental  damage  among  the  taxpayers  of  a  Member
State.

Finally,  successes  in  enforcing  environmental  law  will  also  reduce  social  costs,  as  less
environmental  damage  will  have  to  be  repaired  or  compensated  for  post  the  fact.  This
positively  affects  the  expenditure  side  of  the  state  budget  since  so  far  reparation  and
compensation of environmental damage frequently have to be financed by the public at large.

5.

RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES

On 11 April and 22 July 2002 the Directorate-General "Environment" released, respectively,
two  working  documents  that  established  the  core  principles  of  the  proposal  for  a  Directive,
and  stated  the  objectives  and  the  contents  of  the  future  directive.  To  maximise  the
effectiveness of the consultation process, these documents were distributed to Member States,
non-governmental associations, associations of companies, regional and local authorities, and
to  the  candidate  countries.  During  spring  and  autumn  2002,  stakeholder  meetings  were
organised for the purpose of finalising a draft proposal for a Directive on access to justice in
environmental matters.

5.1.

Member States

Two meetings were held on May and September 2002 with experts from Member States. At
these  meetings and  also  subsequently  in  writing,  Member  States  made  numerous  comments
and  remarks  regarding  the  proportional  application  of  the  proposed  measure  based  on  the
principle of subsidiarity. Member States' opinions varied from the opposition to the text to its
support.

Their main concerns made reference to the subsidiarity principle, to different degrees. Some
of  them  felt  that  different  issues  of  the  proposal  on  access  to  justice  directly  affects  their
capacities and should be left to their own legislation. Among these issues the following can be
noted:

–  Legal  standing:  Groups  without  legal  personality  have  no  legal  structure,  their
objectives are not established in a public, transparent document and they have no
financial ways of answering for their acts. Based on these arguments, the experts
felt  that  those  groups  should  not  be  allowed  to  act  in  courts  and  administrative
bodies of review.

–  Qualified  entities:  The  working  documents  stipulated  that  certain  groups,
previously recognised as such by means of a special procedure, could have access
to review proceedings without having to claim the impairment of a right or having
a sufficient interest. For some of the experts these provisions go beyond Article 9
of the Århus Convention.

8

–  Interim  relief  measures:  Some  of  the  experts  observed  that  there  were  no
provisions at  this respect in  the Århus  Convention. With  a  view  to  this  fact,  the
possibility of laying  down this  sort  of measure  should  be left  to  Member  States'
legislation

–  Additional  provisions:  The  second  working  document  foresaw  an  obligation  on
Member States of sending periodical reports to the Commission services about the
proceedings  submitted  to  administrative  and  judicial  bodies.  The  experts  have
stressed that this obligation would overburden their national administrations.

The text of the proposal takes into account these comments and observations. Hence, most of
the  controversial  aspects  were  removed  or  adapted.  The  response  to  the  Member  States'
observations can be summarised as follows:

(cid:1)  The  general  remarks  on  subsidiarity  were  not  accepted.  The  signature  of  the
Århus  Convention  imposes  on  the  Community  the  obligation  of  aligning  its
legislation as a condition to adhere to the Convention. The Community will only
be able to fulfil these obligations if it is able to grant the required access to justice
in a harmonised way throughout the European Community.

(cid:1)  As far as the provisions of a privileged legal standing are concerned, most of the
controversial items have not been taken up. Thus, the privileged legal standing for
groups  without  legal  personality  and  the  privileged  legal  standing  for  local  and
regional authorities have been removed from the text.

(cid:1)  Some  Member  States  were  opposed  to  the  provision  that  recognised  that  non-
governmental  organisations  have  privileged  access 
to  review
proceedings  without  having  to  prove  the  impairment  of  a  right  or  to  have  a
sufficient interest. The Commission considers that this provision which takes over
a provision from the Århus Convention, is crucial for the proposal.

justice 

to 

(cid:1)  The proposal considerably softens the provisions concerning national reports and
only  contains  provisions  referring  to  general  reporting.  This  modification  will
allow an easier transposition of the directive into Member States' legislation.

5.2.

Non-governmental organisations

Two meetings took place with non-governmental organisations in May and September 2002.
These  meetings  allowed  to  examine  the  ideas  contained  in  the  working  documents  that
concern the directive and written comments were also sought for.

Non-governmental organisations maintained a totally opposite position from the one stated by
Member  States  during  the  consultation  procedure.  Thus,  non-governmental  organisations
wanted a more forward-looking proposal since from their point of view it constrains the field
of application of the Århus Convention, mainly as far as the legal standing issue is concerned.
They  expected  a  much  broader  provision  and  asked  for  a  general  legal  standing  without
restrictions,  known  as  "actio  popularis".  The  Commission  does  not  share  this  point  of  view
since  the  "actio  popularis"  is  not  explicitly  required  by  the  Århus  Convention  and  must  be
therefore left to Member States.

9

These organisations also disagreed with the fact that the second working document only took
up  acts  and  omissions  by  public  authorities  and  not  by  private  persons.  They  also  regretted
that acts and omissions to be challenged do not include criminal matters.

Further  comments  touched  upon  the  point  referred  to  the  "qualified  entities".  For  most  of
them, these groups will have to fulfil very severe conditions to be recognised under the future
proposal, as one of these entities.

5.3.

Industry

Remarks from industrial operators were collected at two meetings held in May and September
2002, and they were also invited to  submit  written  comments  on  the  ideas  advanced  by  the
working documents.

Their main concerns appeared to have been met by the fact that the possibility of review of
acts  and  omissions  coming  from  private  parties  was  removed  from  the  second  working
document.  Further  comments  touched  upon  the  legal  standing  of  groups  without  legal
personality.  In  the  opinion  of  economic  operators,  access  to  courts  or  administrative  bodies
should  be  limited  to  the  associations  with  legal  personality,  given  that  only  those  have
objectives established in a legal form and a patrimony that can answer for their acts.

5.4.

Regional and local authorities

Two meetings were held with representatives of the local and regional authorities in May and
September 2002, and regional and local authorities were invited to submit written comments.
Most  of  the  representatives  of  local  and  regional  authorities  attending  the  meeting  made
similar comments to those made in consultations of Member States.

Concerns mainly referred to the principle of subsidiarity. They insisted that many of the rules
set  up  in  the  working  documents  interfered  with  their  capacities,  therefore  only  Member
States may establish this sort of legislation.

With the same arguments held by the experts from Member States, the points of the working
documents that have raised the opposition of regional and local authorities made reference to
provisions  on  legal  standing,  qualified  entities,  interim  relief  measures  and  reporting
provisions.

5.5.

Accession countries

Finally, two meetings with representatives  of the  accession  countries were  held in May  and
September  2002.  The  candidate  countries  have  expressed  certain  concerns  about  the  scope
and contents included in the working documents.

Their comments made reference to the approach of the future proposal in relation to the Århus
Convention.  As  a  general  remark,  they  pointed  out  that  the  majority  of  them  have  already
ratified the Convention, meanwhile neither the Community nor the  majority  of  the  Member
States  had  done  so  yet.  They  wondered  whether  they  should  have  to  modify  the  provisions
they  had  already  adopted  in  order  to  fully  implement  the  Århus  Convention  within  their
national legislation.

On the other hand, they felt that certain provisions of the working documents, especially those
that concern the legal standing provisions, exceed those of the Århus Convention.

10

6.

DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSAL

Subject matter and scope (Article 1)

The  proposal  aims  at  establishing  a  framework  of  minimum  requirements  for  access  to  the
judicial and administrative proceedings in environmental matters in order to achieve a better
implementation  and  application  of  environmental  law  in  the  European  Union,  and  to
implement the third pillar of the Århus Convention.

The proposed directive grants legal standing to certain members of the public, enabling them
to have access to judicial or administrative proceedings against the actions and omissions of
public authorities which contravene environmental law. This approach incorporates the Århus
Convention and  is based on the  administrative and judicial  proceedings  existing in Member
States.

The directive shall not prejudge other Community provisions regarding access to justice. Such
provisions are at present established  under  Directive  2003/4/EC  on  access  to  environmental
information and under Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation.

Definitions (Article 2)

The  Article  establishes  definitions  that  are  crucial  for  the  interpretation  of  the  Directive,
among  them,  definitions  that  refer  to  "environmental  proceedings"  or  "environmental  law"
can  be  emphasised.  All  other  definitions  refer  to  the  access  to  review  proceedings  or
determine the subject of these procedures.

Environmental proceedings

"Environmental  proceedings"  means  administrative  or  judicial  proceedings,  other  than
criminal  proceedings,  before  a  judicial  authority  or  another  independent  and  impartial  body
established by law to review acts and omissions of public authorities.

The  instrument  does  not  differentiate  between  access  to  a  judicial  authority  or  to  another
independent and impartial body as it aims at the legally binding effect of decisions emanating
from  the  authority  in  question.  Thus,  Member  States  may  decide  before  which  body  these
proceedings may be brought.

Administrative acts and omissions

Administrative  acts  and  omissions  may  be  the  object  of  recourse  if  they  contravene
environmental  law.  Administrative  act  shall  mean  any  measure  taken  under  environmental
law  by  a  public  authority  having  a  legally  binding  and  external  effect.  Administrative
omission  means  a  failure  to  act  by  a  public  authority,  if  there  was  an  obligation  under
environmental law for the public authority to act.

Member of the public

“Member of the public” means one  or more natural or legal persons, and their  associations,
organisations or groups.

11

Qualified entity

"Qualified entity" means any association, organisation or group whose objective is protecting
the environment and which is recognised according to the procedure fixed in Article 9. To be
recognised, the qualified entities have to meet certain conditions established in Article 8.

Environmental law

“Environmental  law”  is  defined  in  general  terms  to  make  it  possible  to  include  relevant
legislation on the environment. As environmental law is constantly developing, drawing up an
exhaustive list would be problematic,  as a  procedure  for  regular  updating  would  have  to  be
provided. Thus, the proposal takes account of the following aspects:

–  The legislative objective must be one of the objectives taken up in Article 174 of

the EC Treaty.

–  The definition must be consistent with the Århus Convention, taking up the main
aspects  of  the  environment.  It  seems  inappropriate  to  draft  an  exhaustive  list  of
what must be understood as “environmental law”, as this concept is not defined in
the  Århus  Convention.  The  constant  evolution  of  environmental  law  requires  an
indicative list.

Acts and omissions by private persons (Article 3)

Article  9(3)  of  the  Århus  Convention  provides  for  access  to  administrative  or  judicial
proceedings against acts and omissions by private persons as well as by public authorities that
contravene environmental law. On grounds of subsidiarity, the proposed directive is limited to
setting out in more detail the rules concerning judicial and administrative review proceedings
to  challenge  acts  and  omissions  by  public  authorities.  Setting  out  provisions  in  relation  to
private persons would impinge upon the very core of Member States systems since it means
that a  community law  might  address  an  issue as  close  to  Member  States  competence  as  the
possibility  for  private  persons  to  challenge  in  courts  acts  by  private  persons.  Thus,  the
proposal  reflects  the  obligation  of  the  Århus  Convention  without  prejudging  the  detailed
provisions to be laid down by Member States.

Legal standing of members of the public (Article 4)

Article  4  establishes  the  criteria  for  determining  which  members  of  the  public  have  legal
standing  to  have  access  to  administrative  or  judicial  proceedings,  including  interim  relief
measures, against acts and omissions of public authorities aimed at by the Directive. Members
of the public must have  a  sufficient  interest  in  the  related  administrative  act  or  omission  or
maintain the impairment of a right, where  the  administrative procedural law of the Member
State concerned requires this as a precondition to have access to review procedures. With the
establishment  of  these  criteria  the  Commission  decided  not  to  opt  for  the  possibility  of  a
general right of legal standing for every natural persons because the generalised requirement
of "actio popularis" is incompatible with the principle of subsidiarity, in the light of the fact
that the Århus Convention leaves the possibility of laying down criteria under national law.

Under the terms of the proposal, members of the public meeting the criteria above have access
to  review  proceedings  challenging  both  the  procedural  and  substantive  legality  of
administrative acts or omissions in breach of environmental law.

12

Legal standing of qualified entities (Article 5)

By  granting  legal  standing  to  "qualified  entities"  the  proposed  directive  expands  beyond
Article 4. While it does not follow the concept of allowing an "actio popularis" the proposal
confers  legal  standing  by  definition  to  certain  groups,  which  will  not  be  required  to  have  a
sufficient interest or to maintain  the impairment  of a right.  The  Århus  Convention  does  not
address this issue, but allows each Contracting Party the possibility to determine the breadth
of legal standing in its national legislation.

The privileged legal standing of qualified entities requires a clear definition of the qualifying
characteristics. The proposal applies an evaluation procedure on the activity of these entities.
The  legal  standing  is  conditioned  upon  the  subject  of  the  procedure  being  a  statutory  and
geographically  relevant  activity  of  the  entity  concerned.  The  proposal  also  incorporates  the
possibility  of  having  access  to  environmental  proceedings  in  transboundary  cases.  Thus,  an
entity  recognised  in  one  Member  State  may  have  recourse  to  environmental  proceedings  in
another Member State to challenge a breach of environmental law provided it falls within its
statutory and geographical area of activities.

Request for internal review (Article 6)

The "request for internal review" is a preliminary procedure that allows submitting a request
to resolve the matter to the public authority designated in accordance with national law, prior
to having access to environmental proceedings. The proposal does not prejudge which is the
public  authority competent  to  receive  a  request  for  internal  review,  in  order  not  to  interfere
with the administrative organisation in Member States at this respect.

Moreover,  this  "request  for  internal  review"  was  deliberately  drafted  so  as  not  to  interfere
with  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  access  to  justice.  Competent  authorities  shall  consider  any
such  request,  unless  it  is  clearly  unsubstantiated.  Furthermore,  competent  authorities  shall
issue  a  decision  to  the  member  of  the  public  filing  the  request,  no  later  than  twelve  weeks
after  the  request  was  filed,  or  to  refuse  the  request  for  internal  review.  Finally,  competent
authorities are required to state the reasons for their decision.

The proposal takes account of the possibility that the public authority in question may not be,
despite its efforts, in a position to take a decision within the above-mentioned time limit. In
this case, the authority is obliged to notify as quickly as possible the reasons for the delay in a
decision  being  reached  to  those  that  have  submitted  the  request  for  internal  review  and  to
inform  the  people  concerned  when  a  final  decision  is  likely  to  be  reached.  The  competent
authority will make this decision within a reasonable time, in view of the nature, extent and
gravity of the breach of the environmental law involved.

Environmental proceedings (Article 7)

Where the public authority does not reach a decision within the time limit given under Article
6 or its  decision is  considered  as insufficient  to  ensure compliance  with  environmental  law,
those who have submitted the request for internal review may, "a posteriori", have access to
environmental proceedings.

Criteria for recognition of qualified entities (Article 8)

This Article defines which criteria these entities have to meet in order to have legal standing
without having a sufficient interest or maintaining the impairment of a right. To give such a
privileged right of access to justice to these entities is justified by the increasingly important

13

role  in  national  and  international  environmental  protection  played  by  them.  Consequently,
these  organisations  have  to  grant  that  their  first  statutory  objective  is  to  protect  the
environment. On this purpose, they have to meet further criteria, such as:

–  Operate on a non-profit basis and in the general interest of  the environment; i.e.
not  to  follow  economic  activities  other  than  those  which  relate  to  the  principal
objective of the organisation.

–  Have  legal  personality  and  an  organisational  structure  sufficient  to  ensure  the

adequate pursuit of their statutory purpose to protect the environment.

–  Active pursuit of environmental protection in accordance with their statutes since
a period that is to be fixed by the Member States and shall be no longer than three
years.

Procedure for recognition of qualified entities (Article 9)

Regarding the process of recognising the qualified entities, the proposal provides for a mixed
approach  combining  the  possibility  of  a  preliminary  procedure  and  (ad  hoc)  case  by  case
recognition.  The  possibility  of  these  two  procedures  has  the  advantage  of  providing
effectiveness  and  flexibility.  Certain  environmental  organisations  may  choose  advance
recognition, whereas others may prefer to choose “ad hoc” recognition. Member States may
decide  at  their  discretion  to  provide  for  an  advance  or  an  “ad  hoc”  recognition  procedure.
Should a Member State decide for advance recognition, it shall also ensure that access to an
expeditious “ad hoc” recognition is available.

Requirements for environmental proceedings (Article 10)

To overcome obstacles that prevent access to justice and in line with Article 9(4) of the Århus
Convention  this  provision  foresees  the  establishment  of  effective  and  adequate  proceedings
that  must  be  fair,  equitable,  timely  and  not  prohibitively  expensive.  These  obstacles  may
consist  of  financial  constraints,  difficulties  in  obtaining  legal  advice,  a  lack  of  ecological
knowledge within the administrative or judicial bodies, shortcomings in the application of the
administrative  or  legal  decisions,  or  a  lack  of  public  information  on  environmental
proceedings. In order to give appropriate legal certainty and transparency, decisions under the
terms of the proposal shall be given in writing to the public, and whenever possible, shall be
publicly accessible.

Reports (Article 11)

This  provision  foresees  that  Member  States  periodically  report  to  the  Commission  on  the
application  of  the  future  directive.  The  Commission  is  to  publish  reports  on  the
implementation of the directive.

Other provisions (Articles 12 to 14)

The proposal requires Member States to take all necessary measures eighteen months after the
entry into force of the directive. The  final provisions fix  the date of entry into force for the
1 January 2005.

14

2003/0246 (COD)

Proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on access to justice in environmental matters

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,  and in particular Article
175(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission6,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee7,

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions8,

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty9,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Increased  public  access  to  justice  in  environmental  matters  contributes  to  achieving
the  objectives  of  Community  policy  on  the  protection  of  the  environment  by
overcoming  current  shortcomings  in  the  enforcement  of  environmental  law  and,
eventually, to a better environment.

On  25  June  1998  the  Community  signed  the  UN/ECE  Convention  on  Access  to
Information,  Public  Participation  in  Decision-making  and  Access  to  Justice  in
Environmental matters ("the Århus Convention"). Provisions of Community law must
be consistent with that Convention with a view to its conclusion by the Community.

The Århus Convention consists of three pillars, namely access to information, public
participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. Two
directives  have  already  been  adopted  to  develop  the  first  and  second  pillars  of  the
Convention;  Directive  2003/4/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of
28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council
Directive 90/313/EEC10 and Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of
the  Council  of  26  May  2003  providing  for  public  participation  in  respect  of  the
drawing  up  of  certain  plans  and  programmes  relating  to  the  environment  and
amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ C , , p. .
OJ L 41, 14.2.2003, p. 26

15

                                                
(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

85/337/EEC  and  96/61/EC11.  It  is  now  necessary  to  develop  the  third  pillar  of  the
Convention.

Article  9(3)  of  the  Århus  Convention  provides  for  access  to  judicial  or  other  review
procedures  for  challenging  acts  and  omissions  by  private  persons  and  public
authorities  which  contravene  environmental  law.  In  accordance  with  the  principle  of
subsidiarity, acts and omissions by private persons should be challenged in accordance
with the criteria laid down in Member States legislation.

To take fully account of Article 9(3) of the Århus Convention and in order to improve
environmental  protection,  provision  should  be  made  for  administrative  or  judicial
proceedings  for  challenging  administrative  acts  and  omissions  by  public  authorities
which  contravene  environmental  law.  Proceedings  should  be  fair  and  should  not  be
excessively  long  or  expensive.  Provision  should  also  be  made  for  interim  relief
measures to ensure the intervention of courts and review bodies.

Provision should likewise be made concerning acts and omissions to be challenged in
review  bodies.  Administrative  acts  should  be  subject  to  review  where  they  have
legally binding and external effect as long as those acts are not adopted by bodies or
institutions  acting  in  a  legislative  or  judicial  capacity.  In  the  same  way,  omissions
should be covered where there is an obligation to act under environmental law.

In view of  the  fact that environmental law is  in  a constant state of  development,  the
definition of environmental law should refer to objectives of Community policy on the
environment, notably to the protection or improvement of the environment, including
human health and the protection of natural resources. Member States should be able to
extend this definition to include environmental law of exclusively national origin.

(8) Where they have a sufficient interest or maintain the impairment of a right, members
of the public should have access to environmental proceedings in order to challenge in
courts or other review bodies, the procedural and substantive legality of administrative
acts or omissions which contravene environmental law.

(9)

(10)

Entities active in the field of environmental protection which meet certain conditions
should have access to environmental proceedings in order to challenge the procedural
and  substantive  legality  of  administrative  acts  and  omissions  which  contravene
environmental law. The object of the review procedures brought by these entities must
fall within the field of their statutory activities.

Provision should be made for the administrative act or omission to be reviewed by the
public  authority  designated  in  accordance  with  national  law,  to  either  reconsider  the
administrative act or, in the case of an omission, to provide for the action required to
be taken.

(11) Where a previous request for internal review did not meet with approval, the applicant
should be able to seek an administrative or judicial review of the act or omission of a
public authority.

11 

OJ L 156, 25.6.2003, p. 17

16

                                                
(12)

(13)

(14)

This  Directive  should  be  evaluated  regularly  in  the  light  of  experience  and  after
submission  of  the  relevant  reports  by  the  Member  States.  It  should  be  subject  to
revision  on  that  basis.  The  Commission  should  submit  an  evaluation  report  to  the
European Parliament and the Council.

The  provisions  of  this  Directive  should  not  affect  the  right  of  a  Member  State  to
maintain or introduce measures providing for wider access to justice than required by
this Directive.

Since  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  action  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the
Member  States,  given  that  the  right  of  access  to  justice  is  to  be  granted  in  a  way  to
ensure  consistent  application  of  Community  law  on  the  environment,  and  can
therefore,  by  reasons  of  the  scale  and  effects  of  the  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.  In accordance  with  the
principle  of  proportionality,  as  set  out  in  that  Article,  this  Directive  does  not  go
beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(15)

This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised
in  particular  by  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union.  In
particular,  this  directive  seeks  to  ensure  full  respect  for  the  protection  of  the
environment  and  to  promote  the  application  of  Article  37  of  the  Charter  of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1
Subject matter and scope

This  Directive  establishes  provisions  aiming  to  ensure  access  to  justice  in  environmental
proceedings for members of the public and for qualified entities.

The Directive shall apply without prejudice to other Community provisions concerning access
to justice in environmental matters.

1.

For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:

Article2
Definitions

(a) 

(b) 

"public authority" means the public administration of Member States,
including  administration  at  national,  regional  or  local  level  but
excluding  public  prosecutors  and  bodies,  administrations  or
institutions acting in a judicial or legislative capacity;

"member  of  the  public"  means  one  or  more  natural  or  legal  persons
and  in  accordance  with  national  law,  associations,  organisations  or
groups made up by these persons;

17

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

"qualified entity" means any association, organisation or group, which
has  the  objective  to  protect  the  environment  and  is  recognised
according to the procedure laid down in Article 9;

"administrative  act"  means  any  administrative  measure  taken  by  a
public authority under environmental law, which has a legally binding
and external effect;

"administrative  omission"  means  any  failure  of  a  public  authority  to
take administrative action under environmental law, where it is legally
required to do so;

"environmental  proceedings"  means  the  administrative  or  judicial
review proceedings in environmental matters, other than proceedings
in  criminal  matters,  before  a  court  or  other  independent  body
established by law, which is concluded by a binding decision;

"environmental  law"  means  Community  legislation  and  legislation
adopted  to  implement  Community  legislation  which  have  as  their
objective  the  protection  or  the  improvement  of  the  environment,
including  human  health  and  the  protection  or  the  rational  use  of
natural resources, in areas such as:

i)

ii)

water protection

noise protection

iii)

soil protection

iv)

atmospheric pollution

v)

town and country planning and land use

vi)

nature conservation and biological diversity

vii) waste management

viii) chemicals including biocides and pesticides

ix)

biotechnology

x)

other emissions, discharges and releases in the environment.

xi)

environmental impact assessment

xii)

access to environmental information and public participation
in decision-making.

2.

Member States may include environmental law of exclusively national origin in the
definition set out in paragraph 1(g).

18

Article 3
Acts and omissions by private persons

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  members  of  the  public,  where  they  meet  the  criteria  laid
down in national law, have access to environmental proceedings in order to challenge acts and
omissions by private persons which are in breach of environmental law.

Article 4
Legal standing of members of the public

Member States shall ensure that members of the public have access to environmental
proceedings,  including  interim  relief,  in  order  to  challenge  the  procedural  and
substantive legality of administrative acts and administrative omissions in breach of
environmental law where:

(a) 

(b) 

they have a sufficient interest, or

they  maintain  the  impairment  of  a  right,  where  the  administrative  procedural
law requires this as a precondition.

Applications for interim relief shall not be subject to compliance with the procedure
laid down in Article 6.

Member States shall determine, in accordance with the requirements of their law and
with  the  objective  of  granting  broad  access  to  justice,  what  constitutes  a  sufficient
interest and an impairment of a right for the purposes of paragraph 1.

Article 5
Legal standing of qualified entities

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  qualified  entities  recognised  in  accordance  with
Article 9 have access to environmental proceedings, including interim relief, without
having a sufficient interest or maintaining the impairment of a right, if the matter of
review  in  respect  of  which  an  action  is  brought  is  covered  specifically  by  the
statutory  activities  of  the  qualified  entity  and  the  review  falls  within  the  specific
geographical area of activities of that entity.

A qualified entity recognised in accordance with Article 9 in one Member State shall
be entitled to submit a request for internal review in another Member State under the
conditions of paragraph 1.

Applications for interim relief measures shall not be subject to compliance with the
procedure laid down in Article 6.

1.

2.

1.

2.

3.

19

1.

2.

3.

4.

Article 6
Request for internal review

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  members  of  the  public  and  qualified  entities  who
have  legal  standing  according  to  Articles  4  and  5,  and  who  consider  that  an
administrative act or administrative omission is in breach of environmental law, are
entitled  to  make  a  request  for  internal  review  to  the  public  authority  that  has  been
designated in accordance with national law.

Member States shall establish in which time limit and in which form such a request is
submitted. This time limit shall not be shorter than four weeks following the date at
which the administrative act being taken, or, in the case of alleged omission, after the
date when the administrative act was required by law.

The  public  authority  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  shall  consider  any  such  request,
unless the request is clearly unsubstantiated. It shall issue as soon as possible, but no
later  than  twelve  weeks  after  receipt  of  the  request,  a  decision  in  writing  on  the
measure  to  be  taken  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  environmental  law,  or  on  its
refusal with regard to the request. The decision shall be addressed to the member of
the  public  or  the  qualified  entity  that  has  made  the  request;  it  shall  explain  the
reasons for the decision.

Where the public authority is unable, despite due diligence, to take  a  decision  on a
request  for  internal  review  within  the  period  mentioned  in  paragraph  2,  it  shall
inform the applicant as soon as possible, and at the latest within the period mentioned
in  that  paragraph,  of  the  reasons  for  not  being  able  to  take  the  decision  and  of  the
time when it intends to decide on the request.

The  public  authority  shall  take  a  decision  on  the  request  for  internal  review,
considering  the  nature,  extent  and  gravity  of  the  breach  of  the  environmental  law
within a reasonable time frame but no later than eighteen weeks from the receipt of
the  request  for  internal  review.  It  shall  immediately  inform  the  applicant  of  its
decision on the request.

Article 7
Environmental proceedings

Where a decision on a request for internal review has not been taken by the public authority
within the time limits referred to in Article 6, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, or  where the applicant
considers that the decision is  insufficient  to  ensure  compliance  with  environmental  law,  the
applicant shall be entitled to institute environmental proceedings.

Article 8
Criteria for recognition of qualified entities

In  order  to  be  recognised  as  a  qualified  entity,  an  international,  national,  regional  or  local
association, organisation or group shall comply with the following criteria:

(a)

it  must  be  an  independent  and  non-profit-making  legal  person,
which has the objective to protect the environment;

20

(b)

(c)

(d)

it must have an organisational structure which enables it to ensure
the adequate pursuit of its statutory objectives;

it  must  have  been  legally  constituted  and  worked  actively  for
environmental  protection,  in  conformity  with  its  statutes,  for  a
period to be fixed by the Member State in which is constituted, but
not exceeding three years;

it  must  have  its  annual  statement  of  accounts  certified  by  a
registered auditor for a period to be fixed by each Member State, in
accordance with provisions set out by virtue of paragraph 1 (c).

Article 9
Procedure for recognition of qualified entities

1.

2.

3.

4.

Member  States  shall  adopt  a  procedure  to  ensure  an  expeditious  recognition  of
qualified entities where they meet the criteria set out in Article 8, either on a case by
case basis ("ad hoc"), or under an advance recognition procedure.

Where a Member State opts for an advance recognition procedure it shall ensure that
there is also a possibility for an expeditious "ad hoc" recognition.

Member States shall determine the competent authority or authorities responsible for
recognition.

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  where  a  request  for  recognition  has  been  rejected
this  decision  can  be  reviewed  in  courts  or  another  independent  and  impartial  body
established by law.

Member States shall lay down the detailed provisions of the recognition procedure.

Article 10
Requirements for environmental proceedings.

Member  States  shall  provide  for  adequate  and  effective  proceedings  that  are  objective,
equitable, expeditious and not prohibitively expensive.

Decisions under this Directive shall be  given  or  recorded  in  writing,  and  whenever  possible
shall be publicly accessible.

Article 11
Reports

Member  States  shall  report  on  the  experience  gained  in  the  application  of  this  Directive
by […]  at  the  latest.  They  shall  communicate  the  report  to  the  Commission  by  […]  at  the
latest.

The Commission shall publish a Community report about the implementation of this Directive
to the European Parliament and the Council and may propose the necessary amendments, on
the basis of the national reports.

21

Article 12
Transposition

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions
necessary to comply with this Directive by […]. They shall forthwith inform the Commission
thereof.

When Member States adopt the measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be
accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States
shall determine how such reference is to be made.

Article 13
Entry into force

This Directive shall enter into force on 1 January 2005.

Article 14
Addresses

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament
The President

For the Council
The President

22