Locus Standi for Environmental Associations under EC Law ‐ Greenpeace ‐ A Missed Opportunity for the ECJ

• Published date: 01 November 1999
• Author: Diana L. Torrens
• Date: 01 November 1999
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9388.00218

Locus Standi after Greenpeace Volume 8 Issue 3 1999

Locus Standi

for

Environmental Associations

under EC Law –

Greenpeace

– A Missed

Opportunity for the ECJ

Locus Standi

for

Environmental Associations

under EC Law –

Greenpeace

– A Missed

Opportunity for the ECJ

Diana L. Torrens

Introduction

The protection of environmental interests in the Euro-

pean Community has been making progress in recent

years, although it still falls far short of what could be

wished for. That is why it is important for Community

institutions to grasp opportunities to further environ-

mental interests when those opportunities arise.

Often the problem in environment-related matters is not

so much a lack of appropriate or adequately-drafted

legislative provisions as a problem of enforcement of

existing provisions. The Commission has a central role

to play in enforcing Community provisions, but Com-

munity legislation of all sorts has undergone exponential

growth in recent years. The ever-increasing complexity

of Community legislation makes it more and more diff‌i-

cult to keep track of the impact of Community legislation

on inter alia people and the environment. A related

development is the increasingly pervasive role Com-

munity legislation plays in the lives of individuals in the

Community. Consequently, it is not only appropriate but

also very desirable that private parties play a greater

role in enforcing Community legislation in suitable cases.

Allowing appropriate individuals and groups to do so is

a logical development in the evolution of Community

law.

The case of Stichting Greenpeace Council v. Commission

1

shows that it is time for environmental groups to be

recognized as having locus standi under Article 230(4) of

the EC Treaty

2

to bring cases before the Court of Justice

of the European Communities (ECJ) when environmental

concerns are at stake.

The facts of the Greenpeace case have already been sum-

marized in RECIEL.

3

Accordingly, the present article will

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

336

focus on offering some thoughts for possible develop-

ment post-Greenpeace.

Locus Standi and How it was

Dealt With in the Greenpeace

Case

Article 230(4)

4

deals with the standing of non-privileged

parties, i.e., parties not listed in Article 230(2) and (3),

to bring actions where a party other than a privileged

one has been negatively affected by a decision of a Com-

munity institution. It is drafted restrictively and has been

interpreted restrictively by the ECJ. For a non-addressee

of a decision to bring an action under Article 230(4), the

applicant must be ‘directly and individually’ concerned

by the decision.

‘Direct concern’ denotes causation: there must be a cau-

sal link between the decision and the negative reper-

cussion suffered by the applicant. If the applicant is not

affected or if the effect is occasioned by some novus

actus interveniens, e.g. an administrative decision by a

national authority pursuant to a Commission regulation,

the line of causation is broken and the concern will no

longer be direct.

In practice the examination of direct concern will often

be subsumed into the examination of whether the appli-

cant is individually concerned.

‘Individual concern’ means that the applicant must be

affected by the decision in a way different from everyone

else. The case law has not been generous to non-privi-

leged applicants, although the ECJ has been capable of

surprising latitude sometimes.