Case C-826/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Limburg — Netherlands) — LB, Stichting Varkens in Nood, Stichting Dierenrecht, Stichting Leefbaar Buitengebied v College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Echt-Susteren (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Aarhus Convention — Article 9(2) and (3) — Access to justice — No access to justice for the public other than the public concerned — Admissibility of the action subject to prior participation in the decision-making procedure)
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: UN convention, access to information, admissibility, decision-making, environmental protection, multilateral agreement, non-governmental organisation, right to justice








C_2021072EN.01000302.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/3






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Limburg — Netherlands) — LB, Stichting Varkens in Nood, Stichting Dierenrecht, Stichting Leefbaar Buitengebied v College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Echt-Susteren
(Case C-826/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Aarhus Convention - Article 9(2) and (3) - Access to justice - No access to justice for the public other than the public concerned - Admissibility of the action subject to prior participation in the decision-making procedure)
(2021/C 72/04)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Limburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: LB, Stichting Varkens in Nood, Stichting Dierenrecht, Stichting Leefbaar Buitengebied

Defendant: College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Echt-Susteren

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 9(2) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus (Denmark) on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 must be interpreted as not precluding members of the ‘public’ which is referred to in Article 2(4) of that convention from having no access as such to justice for the purposes of challenging a decision which falls within the scope of Article 6 of that convention. However, Article 9(3) of that convention precludes such persons from not being able to have access to justice for the purposes of relying on more extensive rights to participate in the decision-making procedure which may be conferred on them solely by the national environmental law of a Member State;










2.


Article 9(2) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus (Denmark) on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Decision 2005/370/EC must be interpreted as precluding the admissibility of the judicial proceedings to which it refers, brought by non-governmental organisations which are part of the ‘public concerned’ referred to in Article 2(5) of that convention, from being made subject to the participation of those organisations in the procedure preparatory to the contested decision, even though that condition does not apply where such organisations cannot reasonably be criticised for not having participated in that procedure. However, Article 9(3) of that convention does not preclude the admissibility of judicial proceedings to which it refers from being made subject to the participation of the applicant in the procedure preparatory to the contested decision, unless the applicant cannot reasonably be criticised, in the light of the circumstances of the case, for not having intervened in that procedure.






(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.