Litigating for the Environment: EU Law, National Courts, and Socio-Legal Reality

239 Pages·2010·1.05 MB·English

by  Reinhard Slepcevic (auth.)

Reinhard Slepcevic
Litigating for the Environment
VS RESEARCH
Reinhard Slepcevic
Litigating for
the Environment
EU Law, National Courts,
and Socio-Legal Reality
VS RESEARCH
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
Dissertation Universität Wien,2008
The printing of this book has generously been supported by the Austrian Political Science
Association (ÖGPW) and the University of Vienna.
1st Edition 2009
All rights reserved
© VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH,Wiesbaden 2009
Editorial Office:Dorothee Koch |Anita Wilke
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften is part of the specialist publishing group
Springer Science+Business Media.
www.vs-verlag.de
No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted,in any form or by any means,electronic,mechanical,photo-
copying,recording,or otherwise,without the prior written permission of the
copyright holder.
Registered and/or industrial names,trade names,trade descriptions etc.cited in this publication
are part of the law for trade-mark protection and may not be used free in any form or by any
means even if this is not specifically marked.
Cover design:KünkelLopka Medienentwicklung,Heidelberg
Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
ISBN 978-3-531-16842-5
Preface

This book is the result of doctoral studies that I started in October 2004. At the
outset, I only knew that I wanted to work on interest groups and litigation in the
context of the European Union. At that time, I would not have believed that I
would find myself some time later touring half Western Europe to interview
environmental organisations, nor that I would read French, German and Dutch
court rulings on the protection of endangered species whose names were
completely unknown to me. Yet I never regretted my choice of topic, and hopefully
the following chapters will convince the reader that it is indeed a topic that merits
our attention. I would not have been able to cope with all the pitfalls of a long
research project without the strong and enduring support of my friends and
colleagues. Both personally and academically, I have profited enormously from my
three years as a doctoral student at the department of political science at the
Institute for Advanced Studies (Institut für Höhere Studien) in Vienna, Austria. I
am very much indebted to Gerda Falkner, Oliver Treib, Sylvia Kritzinger and Irina
Michalowitz for organising such a great programme which allowed me and my
colleagues to engage in intensive discussions with outstanding academic scholars
such as Alec Stone-Sweet, Paul Pierson, James Caporaso, Frank Schimmelfennig,
Klaus Goetz, Andrea Lenschow, Katharina Holzinger and Hellen Wallace. In
particular, I would like to thank Oliver Treib for his unlimited support and
encouragement. Indeed, it is fair to say that he became my unofficial supervisor. I
am also grateful to my colleagues on the doctoral programme – Nicole Alecu de
Flers, Juan Casado-Asensio, Florian Feldbauer, Zoe Lefkofridi, Heidrun Maurer,
Eric Miklin, Patrick Müller, Erik Tajalli and Florian Trauner – for all the interesting
discussions we had and for their help in overcoming the downsides of doctoral
research. Two other colleagues and friends must be mentioned as well: Holger Bähr,
whose congenial rigour helped me to clarify key concepts in my research, and
Andreas Obermaier, who helped me enormously to reconsider my own work for
the better. I am also very much indebted to Lydia Wazir-Staubmann and David
Barnes for helping me to improve my English. Last but not least, I want to express
my gratitude to my supervisor Emmerich Tálos for being both an academic and
personal role model. All this said, the usual disclaimer applies: without the support
of those mentioned – and many more could be added – I would not have been able
to write this book, yet, ultimately, I am the one to have conducted the work and
therefore I am happy to claim responsibility for both its quality and errors.

Reinhard Slepcevic
Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................15

2 The Interest in the Judicial Enforcement of EU Law ............................21

2.1 Public Interest Group Litigation as a Decentralised System of

European Law Enforcement ............................................................................ 21

2.2 The European Court System, European Integration and

Democratic Governance ................................................................................... 24

2.3 Empirical Puzzle ................................................................................................ 27

2.4 Research Question(s)......................................................................................... 28

3 Theoretical Approach .............................................................................31

3.1 Definitional Issues ............................................................................................. 31

3.2 Existing Explanations for the Differing Effects of Public

Interest Group Litigation .................................................................................. 33

3.3 The Stage Model ................................................................................................ 36

3.3.1 Legal Preconditions for Public Interest Group Litigation ................ 37

3.3.2 Stage 1: Litigation by Public Interest Groups ..................................... 39

3.3.3 Stage 2: Interpretation by the National Courts ................................... 42

3.3.4 Stage 3: Reaction of the Competent Authorities ................................ 43

3.4 Other Possible Explanatory Factors ............................................................... 46

4 Methodological Approach ..................................................................... 49

4.1 Research Design ................................................................................................. 49

4.2 Tools of Inquiry, Data Collection and Data Analysis ................................... 51

4.3 The Policy Area: European Nature Conservation Policy and the

Natura 2000 Directives ..................................................................................... 55

5 The Natura 2000 Directives ................................................................... 59

5.1 The Birds Directive and Hunting Dates ......................................................... 59

5.2 The Site Protection Regime of the Birds Directive ....................................... 62

5.2.1 The ECJ’s Case Law on the Birds Directive ....................................... 62

5.2.2 The Protection Regime of the Habitats Directive .............................. 64

6 France ......................................................................................................71

6.1 The Setting of Hunting Dates .......................................................................... 71

6.1.1 Preliminary Remarks: Scientific Evidence and Hunting Dates ......... 71

6.1.2 The Context for the Implementation of the Birds Directive ............ 72

6.1.3 The Initial Transposition ....................................................................... 75

6.1.4 French Environmental Organisations and Litigation ........................ 76

6.1.5 The Interpretation of the Birds Directive by French Courts ............ 79

6.1.6 Reaction of the Competent Authorities ............................................... 91

6.1.7 The Late Role of the European Commission ..................................... 99

6.1.8 Ultimately Achieving Compliance ..................................................... 101

6.1.9 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 103
8 Contents

6.2 The Implementation of the Natura 2000 Network .................................... 104

6.2.1 The Protracted Process of Designating Natura 2000 Sites ............ 104

6.2.2 The Initial Transposition of the Directives’ Site Protection

Regime ................................................................................................... 109

6.2.3 Reaction of French Environmental Organisations ......................... 112

6.2.4 The French Courts and the Natura 2000 Directives ....................... 113

6.2.5 Effects of Litigation ............................................................................. 122

6.2.6 The Role of the European Commission for Achieving

Compliance ........................................................................................... 123

6.2.7 Remaining Implementation Problems .............................................. 128

6.3 Linking the Empirical Results to the Stage Model ..................................... 129

7 Germany ................................................................................................ 133

7.1 The Implementation of the Natura 2000 Directives ................................. 133

7.1.1 Designation of Sites ............................................................................. 134

7.1.2 Site Protection Measures ..................................................................... 137

7.2 Reasons for the Implementation Problems ................................................ 141

7.3 The Activities of German Environmental Organisations to

Achieve Compliance ....................................................................................... 143

7.3.1 Environmental Organisations and Their Access to Courts ........... 147

7.4 The Role of the European Commission ...................................................... 151

7.5 Interpretation by German Courts ................................................................. 153

7.5.1 Initial Rulings on the Directives’ Site Protection Regime .............. 154

7.5.2 Giving Direct Effect to Article 6 ....................................................... 155

7.5.3 Clarifying the Status of Potential Natura 2000 Sites ....................... 158

7.5.4 Applying the Site Protection Regime: Significant Negative
Effects, Alternatives, and Overriding Reasons of Public

Interest ................................................................................................... 159

7.5.5 Holding the Directives back through Courts ................................... 164

7.5.6 Assessing the Court’s Rulings ............................................................ 165

7.6 Reaction of Environmental Organisations: Restricted Litigation ............ 166

7.7 Effects of Litigation ....................................................................................... 169

7.8 Linking the Empirical Results to the Stage Model ..................................... 172

8 The Netherlands ................................................................................... 175

8.1 The Implementation of the Natura 2000 Directives ................................. 175

8.1.1 The Site Protection Regime ................................................................ 175

8.1.2 The Designation of Sites ..................................................................... 178

8.1.3 The Species Protection Regime ......................................................... 180

8.2 Reasons for the Implementation Problems ................................................ 181

8.3 The Role of the European Commission for the Implementation ........... 184

8.4 Initial Actions Taken by Dutch Environmental Organisations:

Blocked Access ............................................................................................... 186
Contents 9

8.5 The Courts’ Interpretation of the Natura 2000 Directives ....................... 190

8.5.1 The Site Protection Regime ................................................................ 190

8.5.2 The Issue of Site Designation ............................................................ 201

8.5.3 The Issue of Species Protection ......................................................... 203

8.5.4 The Reasoning of the Raad van State – The Way the Court

Tests ....................................................................................................... 206

8.6 Public Interest Group Litigation to Enforce the Directives ..................... 211

8.6.1 The Opportunities to Use Litigation ................................................. 211

8.6.2 The Reaction of Environmental Organisations to the

Created Opportunities ......................................................................... 212

8.7 Effects of Litigation ....................................................................................... 215

8.8 Linking the Empirical Results to the Stage Model ..................................... 219

9 Conclusion............................................................................................. 221

9.1 Evaluating the Stage Model on the Basis of the Empirical Results ......... 221

9.1.1 The Explanatory Power of the Stage Model .................................... 221

9.1.2 The Explanatory Power of Alternative Explanations ..................... 225

9.1.3 Forgotten Explanatory Factors of the Stage Model? ...................... 226

9.2 Litigation as a Decentralised Instrument of European Law

Enforcement .................................................................................................... 228

9.3 European Integration, Democratic Governance and Litigation .............. 230

References………………………………………………………………………………………233
List of Tables

Table 1: Research Goals of Small-N and Large-N Case Studies ................................. 51

Table 2: Overview of the Interviews Conducted ........................................................... 53
Table 3: Key Requirements of the Natura 2000 Directives and Dates of ECJ

Rulings ......................................................................................................................... 69
Table 4: Cases Dealing with Natura 2000 Issues Adjudicated by the Conseil

d’État .......................................................................................................................... 123
Table 5: Infringement Proceedings against France on the Directives’ Site

Protection Regime .................................................................................................... 124

Table 6: Overview of the creation of the French Natura 2000 Network ................ 125

Table 7: Creation of the Natura 2000 Network in Germany .................................... 134
Table 8: Key Figures of Three German Environmental Organisations

(for 2006) ................................................................................................................... 145
Table 9: Infringement Proceedings Against Germany on the

Directives’ Site Protection Regime ......................................................................... 151

Table 10: Published Rulings Dealing with Natura 2000 Issues ................................ 168

Table 11: Designation of Natura 2000 Sites in the Netherlands .............................. 178
Table 12: Infringement Proceedings against the Netherlands on the

Directives’ Site Protection Regime ......................................................................... 185
Table 13: Key Figures of Three Dutch Environmental Organisations

(for 2006) ................................................................................................................... 188
Table 14: Published Rulings on the Directives’ Site Protection Regime

(Results) ..................................................................................................................... 207
Table 15 Published Rulings on the Directives’ Site Protection Regime

(Quality of Testing) .................................................................................................. 210
Table 16: Cross-Tabulation of the Results and the Quality of Testing of

Published Rulings ..................................................................................................... 210

Table 17: Process of Key Events in the Netherlands ................................................ 215

Table 18: Length of Infringement Proceedings .......................................................... 229

List of Figures

Figure 1: The Relationship between the Two Research Questions ............................ 29
Figure 2: A Stage Model for Explaining the Differing Effects of

Public Interest Group Litigation ............................................................................... 37
Figure 3: Necessary Conditions for Effective EU Law Enforcement

through National Courts ............................................................................................ 45
Figure 4: Process of Designating Natura 2000 Sites ..................................................... 66