Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace International) and others v. Commission of the European Communities País/Territorio Unión Europea Tipo de la corte Corte internacional Fecha Apr 2, 1998 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal European Court of Justice Sede de la corte Luxembourg Juez 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. Número de referencia C-321/95 P Idioma Inglés Materia Medio ambiente gen., Cuestiones jurídicas Palabra clave Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos EIA Conservación de energía/producción de energía Corte/tribunal Resumen 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. Texto completo Comission of the European Communities v. Stichting Greenpeace C_321_95 P.pdf Disponible en 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 Página web www.unep.org Referencias Cita Convention on civil liability for damage resulting from activities dangerous to the environment Tratado | Multilateral | Lugano | Jun 21, 1993 Palabra clave: Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos, Política/planificación, OGM, Competencia jurisdiccional, Residuos peligrosos, Acceso-a-la-información, ONG, Cumplimiento/aplicación, Sustancias peligrosas, Responsabilidad/indemnización, Eliminación de desechos, Transporte/depósito Fuente: IUCN (ID: TRE-001166)