Definition of an Environmental Organisation in the Arhus Convention, Environmental Directives and Estonian Law

Author:Kaarel Relve
Position:LL.M., Lecturer of Environmental Law, University of Tartu
Pages:121-131
SUMMARY

1. Arguments in favour of restrictions imposed on limited jurisdiction - 2. Definition of an environmental organisation in the Arhus convention and EU directives - 2.1. Elements of the definition of an environmental organisation: non-governmental and promotion of environmental protection - 2.2. The criterion of concern in the convention and directives - 3. Definition of an environmental... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT
Kaarel Relve
LL.M., Lecturer of Environmental Law
University of Tartu
De nition of an Environmental
Organisation in the Arhus
Convention, Environmental
Directives and Estonian Law
There is an on-going extensive environmental reform in Estonia. In the process, on 16 February 2011, the
Estonian Parliament adopted the General Part of the Environmental Code Act*1 (hereinafter referred to
as the GPECA) which, for the rst time ever, provides for a universal legal de nition of an environmental
organisation in Estonian law.*2 The de nition is paramount for implementation of the code as the provisions
of the general part were drafted in line with the principle that environmental organisations carry a special
role in the protection of environment-related public interest.*3 The requirement to recognise environmental
organisations also stems from the Arhus convention*4 and certain environmental directives.*5 The conven-
tion, directives and Estonian law all ascribe a special status to environmental organisations in environmen-
tal proceedings and access to justice in environmental matters. This article aims to clarify the conditions
an organisation must meet in order to be treated as an environmental organisation for the purposes of the
Arhus convention, directives and Estonian law and, ultimately, to provide an answer as to whether or not the
Estonian de nition of an environmental organisation meets the framework conditions of the Arhus conven-
tion and environmental directives. In view of the limited space afforded to this article, the focus will be on
the de nition of environmental organisations in the context of access to a review procedure.
1 RT I, 28.2.2011, 1 (in Estonian).
2 GPECA §31.
3 Keskkonnaseadustiku üldosa seaduse kontseptsioon (Concept of GPECA), p. 66. Available at http://www.just.ee/orb.aw/
class= le/action=preview/id=44910/Keskkonnaseadustiku+%FCldosa+seaduse+kontseptsioon.pdf (14.6.2011) (in Esto-
nian).
4 The UN convention on accession to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environ-
mental matters was opened for signature on 25 June 1998 at the 4th conference of ministers of environment in Århus on 25
June 1998. The convention entered into force on 30 October 2001. Available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.
htm (14.6.2011).
5 In particular, the following directives are relevant: Council directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (hereinafter referred to as EIA directive). – OJ L 175,
5.7.1985, pp. 40–48; directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental
liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (hereinafter referred to as Environmental
Liability Directive). – OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, pp. 56–7; directive of the European Parliament and Council 2008/1/EC of 15
January 2008 concerning integrated pollution and control (codi ed version) (hereinafter referred to as IPPC directive). – OJ
L 24, 29.1.2008, pp. 8–29. As from 7.1.2014 the IPCC directive will be replaced by directive 2010/75/EU of the European
Parliament and Council of 24 November 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions. – OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, pp. 17–119.
121
JURIDICA INTERNATIONAL XVIII/2011

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL