Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace International) and others v. Commission of the European Communities

Country/Territory
European Union
Type of court
International court
Date
Apr 2, 1998
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
European Court of Justice
Seat of court
Luxembourg
Judge
Rodriguez Iglesias, G., C.
Gulmann, C.
Ragnemalm, H.
Wathelet, M.
Macini, G., F.
Motinho de Almeida, J., C.
Kapteyn, P., J., G.
Murray, J., L.
Edward, D., A., O.
Puissochet, J., P.
Hirsch, G.
Jann, P.
Sevon, L.
Reference number
C-321/95 P
Language
English
Subject
Legal questions, Environment gen.
Keyword
Legal proceedings/administrative proceedings Court/tribunal Energy conservation/energy production EIA
Abstract
Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace) and others appealed under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice against the order of the Court of First Instance (the contested order) in so far as it declared inadmissible their action for annulment of the Commission’s decision to disburse to Spain ECU 12,000,000 under the financial assistance scheme of the European Regional Development Fund. The financial assistance was given for the construction of two power stations in the Canary Islands. The basis of the Greenpeace action was the alleged failure of the Construction company, Union Electrica de Canaris (Unelco) to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment study in accordance with EC Council Directive 85/377/EEC 1985 on the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. It sought the intervention of the Court to stop the works, and also challenged the validity of the administrative authorizations issued to Unelco by the Gran Canary Government. The Commission objected to the proceedings on the grounds of inadmissibility, and for lack of locus standi, had refused to make full disclosure of all information relating to certain measures taken by it on the grounds that it concerned the internal decision-making procedures of the Commission. The Court of first instance had upheld the Commission’s objections and declared the action inadmissible. The Appellate Court found that neither the natural persons suing as Applicants nor the association claiming to have locus standi on behalf of the persons they represented were affected by the contested order. Regarding the environmental interests underpinning the action, the Court emphasized that it was the decision to build the two power stations which was liable to affect the environmental rights arising under Directive 85/337 that the Appellants sought to invoke. Therefore the contested order concerning the Community financing of the power stations affected those rights only indirectly. The rights of the Applicants were fully protected by the national courts where they could challenge the administrative authorizations concerning the construction of the power plants. If it was necessary, the national courts could refer a question to the EC Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty. The Appeal was therefore dismissed against the Appellants but Spain was to bear its own costs.
Full text
Comission of the European Communities v. Stichting Greenpeace C_321_95 P.pdf
Available in
UNEP/UNDP/Dutch Government Joint Project on Environmental Law in Africa, Compendium of Judicial Decisions on Matters related to Environment, National Decisions, Volume I, Page 345
Website
www.unep.org

References

Cites

Convention on civil liability for damage resulting from activities dangerous to the environment

Treaty | Multilateral | Lugano |

Keyword: Hazardous waste, Legal proceedings/administrative proceedings, GMO, Access-to-information, Policy/planning, Hazardous substances, Enforcement/compliance, Liability/compensation, Transport/storage, NGO, Waste disposal, Jurisdictional competence

Source: IUCN (ID: TRE-001166)