The article presents reflections on the changes in the judicial review of environ-
mental decisions needed to ensure the compliance of judicial protection
with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention. The Committee and the CJEU
practice show the need for a further transformation of the understanding of the
legal interests of individuals and non-governmental organisations. When
arranging judicial protection against the EIA consent and other decisions
fall- ing under Article 6 of the Convention, plaintiff shall not be the
only one who bears the burden of proof that the violation of procedural
provisions has af- fected the decision. In these proceedings, as far as this is not already
the case, a requirement of prior cooperation and a limitation to statements and evidence
already submitted during the administrative procedure should be waived at least
for non-governmental organisations. However, as abandoning the pre- clusion
upsets the established balance of the various procedural instruments, some suggestions for possible changes
that would again tip the scales towards greater efficiency, are made. The author emphasises that persons belonging
to the public concerned
(under any of the sectoral
rules) should have access to ju-
dicial protection against
all decisions that constitute an EIA decision
on activi- ties affecting
the environment and determines some inconsistencies regarding access to justice against
preliminary ruling decisions. It concludes with a rec- ommendation for enaction of an exceptionally ex-post environmental impact assessment to establish a possibility to remedy the
breach of EU law.
Key words: Aarhus Convention,
access to justice, administrative decision on activities affecting the
environment, preclusion, public concerned, environmental decision-making.