This potato contains modified starch which – according to the consent holder BASF – can be better processed into products like paper and adhesives. The authorisation was issued for cultivation and for use as feed and as food not exceeding the threshold of 0,9 %. Amflora is a very controversial potato product as it contains the Antibiotic Resistance Marker Gene nptII which creates resistance to important antibiotics like kanamycin, neomycin or geneticin thus posing risks for medical and veterinary treatment.

Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs stipulated the phasing out of the use of such Antibiotic Resistance Markers within a transition period starting from 2001 and ending at the latest by 31 December 2004. Despite this obligation, the European Commission authorized a GMO product which has been prohibited now for more than 5 years. In doing this the Commission relied on a scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), however, this latter opinion contradicts to EFSA’s earlier opinion, ignores the views of competent bodies like the WHO and the European Medicines Agency and shows many inconsistencies like incomplete consideration of evidence.

Justice and Environment – European Network of Environmental Law Organizations – in cooperation with Greenpeace CEE and FoE Austria/GLOBAL 2000 – decided to take the case and request an internal review of the decision at the European Commission, based on Regulation (EC) No. 1367/2006 (the so-called “Aarhus Regulation”). The response of the Commission can be expected in the coming six weeks.

You can read the request here.

]]> http://www.justiceandenvironment.org/2010/06/justice-and-environment-requests-legal-review-of-the-eu%e2%80%99s-gmo-potato-decision/feed/ 0 http://www.justiceandenvironment.org/2010/05/aarhus-toolkit/ http://www.justiceandenvironment.org/2010/05/aarhus-toolkit/#comments Tue, 25 May 2010 17:18:50 +0000 lucie http://www.justiceandenvironment.org/?p=698 Short studies (“toolkits”) presented in this material are summarizing the most important experience of the J&E members and their national partners concerning promotion of the access to justice rights in their respective countries. They aim to provide an instrument to the users of access to justice rights in brief and (hopefully) easy-to understand form the relevant lessons learned by trying to protect the environment at national courts.

Aarhus Toolkit

Justice and Environment made a first check of the directive with regard the direcive’s compliance with the Aarhus Convention. Our findings are pretty clear: the SEVESO II directive is in stark contradiction to the Aarhus Convention. This means both the European Union and its member states are in legal non compliance with the Convention. The review process must thus strive to overcome these shortcomings and make the directive compatible with the Convention by providing rights on public participation, information and justice.

J&E’s position paper:  Aarhus and SEVESO J&E 2010-02-16

Download

• Make some Noise! (2009) -International shadow report on the Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive
• Make some Noise! (2009) – Austria
• Make some Noise! (2009) – Czech Republic
• Make some Noise! (2009) – Estonia
• Make some Noise! (2009) – Hungary
• Make some Noise! (2009) – Slovakia
• Make some Noise! (2009) – Slovenia
• Air and Noise Needs Analysis (2006)

In the realm of environmental law, controversial decisions both on the national and supra-national levels spur the public to seek for legal remedies. Such remedies are available on the said levels; however, their applicability – let alone their effectiveness – are widely questioned by the public.  To what extent this skepticism is true was in the focus of research of Justice and Environment, European Network of Environmental Law Organizations in 2009. One of the areas assessed by J&E lawyers was to what extent the Aarhus Regulation adopted by the EU in 2006 is a real opportunity to challenge environmental decisions made by European Community institutions.  The statistics derived by desk research from data available on the Commission’s dedicated website so far seem quite discouraging: only one out of eight such requests was considered procedurally eligible. Whether it is due to the wrong interpretation of this legal instrument or to a restrictive policy of the Commission, can be found out in the recent study of J&E called: RIR IN PRACTICE, The Functioning of the Legal Instrument of Request for Internal Review under the Aarhus Regulation.

]]> http://www.justiceandenvironment.org/2009/11/the-price-of-justice/feed/ 0 http://www.justiceandenvironment.org/2009/09/access-to-justice-collection/ http://www.justiceandenvironment.org/2009/09/access-to-justice-collection/#comments Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:36:42 +0000 lucie http://www.justiceandenvironment.org/?p=303 A new  J&E Access To Justice Collection is available on the Justice and Environment Website. The collection is based on practrical experiences and court cases of J&E member organisations in seven countries. The national studies discuss the definition of terms for access to justice by individual members of public (standing conditions); the scope of the court review of act and omissions; the effectiveness of a court review, particularly the requirement of its timeliness; the position of the Convention in legal system of its parties and the (non)unity of application of the Convention in individual states (parties) and the consequences therein. The collection of legal studies has been sponsored by International Visegrad Fund and Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment of the Netherlands (VROM)

Sir Robert Carnwath, Lord Justice of Appeal from UK, Luc Lavrysen from the Belgian Constitutional Court and Jerzy Jendroska, member of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee presented their lectures i.a. the role of courts and judges with regard to the protection of the environment, the accessibility and efficiency of the judicial protection on that field or the application of the Aarhus Convention trough the EC law.

The lectures were concurred by working groups, in the scope of which the participants discussed about possible solutions of the model cases, which reflected typical problems related to legal protection of environment before national and EU courts. The cases of the Compliance Committee, which addressed failures of some parties to the Convention concerning access to justice, were also subject to the working groups’ discussions.

Thanks to support by International Visegrad Fund and Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment of the Netherlands, a number of environmental law NGOs – Environmental Law Service (Czech Republic), VIA IURIS (Slovakia), Environmental Management and Law Association (Hungary), ÖKOBÜRO (Austria) and Estonian Environmental Law Center (Estonia) and Environmental Law Center (Poland) actively participated on the conference. All of these organisations except Environmental Law Center (Poland) are members of the Justice & Environment (J&E) network The NGOs lawyers prepared background material for the conference 5) and participated actively at the plenary discussions as well as working groups.

The conference discussions have shown that similar problems concerning access to environmental justice occur in most of the parties to the Convention. On the other side, there are also considerable differences among the individual countries with regard to fulfillment of the Convention’s requirements. This disunity clearly does not correspond to the declared goals of the Convention. It is also not desirable from the aspect of the Convention’s position as part of EC law, which should also indicate the requirement for a basic common standard of its application in all EU member states.

The differences appear for example in the scope of acts subject to judicial review. It is obviously not in accordance with the Convention, that some countries apply so strict criteria in cases concerning e.g. industrial accidents, operation of unauthorised waste dumps or exceeding emission of harmful substances or noise limits, that they actually prevent access to courts to all or nearly all affected subjects (including non-government organisations). Accordingly, the fact that the courts only deal with the procedural mistakes of the authorities and refuse to review also the substantive arguments is not in compliance with the requirements of the Convention. The efficiency of the judicial protection, which cannot be reached without availability of preliminary measures, appears to be a key element for the practical fulfillment of the rights granted by the Convention.

In some countries the courts have acceded to direct application of the Convention, which has mostly led to an increase in standards of legal protection of environment and affected individuals. In other states the courts have refused the option of direct application. Regardless of the issue of whether the Convention is “capable of direct application” from the aspect of national laws, the courts should always interpret the relevant national provisions in accordance with the requirements of the Convention. In most cases this should be sufficient to fulfill its goals. This is also connected to the question of the scope of access to the European Court of Justice in environmental matters, with regard to the decisions and acts of the EU institutions, which has been interpreted very restrictively so far.

The Aarhus Convention is a unique international legal instrument, which combines the subject of environmental protection with human rights and simultaneously with the responsibilities of public institutions and also individuals and their associations. Thanks to its uniqueness the Convention has induced and still induces many expectations. However these expectations are frequently disappointed by the formal approach by courts and other public institutions. It would be shame if these vain expectations would lead to fall of people’s interest and willingness to become actively involved in the environmental protection.

The participation of J&E was supported by:

Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment of the Netherland (VROM)

* Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters,  adopted in Aarhus in 1998