ÖKOBÜRO and bankwatch challenge EU Council Regulation 2022/2577
The EU Council's Regulation 2022/2577, aimed at expediting the expansion of renewable energy, is now under legal scrutiny as ÖKOBÜRO and bankwatch have filed a legal challenge against it. This regulation has raised concerns because it seeks to accelerate renewable energy development at the expense of biodiversity conservation and without democratic participation. Notably, it was formulated without the involvement of the European Parliament, the EU's sole democratic chamber, and contains numerous violations of international and EU laws, including issues with the legal basis for its enactment and the exclusion of the rights of the affected public. While the need for an energy transition is widely acknowledged, dismantling established environmental protection systems and limiting public engagement is not the appropriate solution to rectify past mistakes. Regulation 2022/2577 permits EU member states to bypass the obligation to conduct environmental impact assessments (EIA) and certain water, habitat, and species protection provisions outlined in other EU directives (such as the Water Framework Directive, Birds Directive, and Habitats Directive) in areas designated suitable through a strategic environmental assessment. It is essential to expedite the energy transition, but this should not come at the cost of nature and biodiversity conservation. Only a well-preserved ecosystem can support humanity in the fight against the climate crisis. To challenge the EU Council's regulation, ÖKOBÜRO and bankwatch initially submitted a "Request for Internal Review" to the Council, which was declined, leading to the submission of their case to the European Court of First Instance. Their complaints revolve around the Council's inability to adequately address concerns raised about the regulation. The rules continue to undermine established protection systems, violate international agreements such as the Aarhus Convention and the Alpine Convention, and rely on inappropriate legal bases without proper involvement of the European Parliament. These exceptions cannot be justified by the cited reasons, as studies indicate that process acceleration is hindered by inadequate resources for authorities and flawed project documentation. Genuine acceleration efforts should, therefore, focus on addressing these issues and promoting mandatory energy spatial planning. The legal challenge was filed in mid-August 2023, with a decision from the European Court expected in the coming year.
Austria: Call for suspensory effect on challenges to hunting permissions of protected species
Recent developments in species protection law have seen Austrian federal states shift from traditional permits for the removal of legally protected species (such as wolves, beavers, and otters) to "removal regulations." These regulations have raised concerns as they generally offer no legal recourse, excluding environmental organizations and potentially violating both EU and international law. However, a significant change emerged from a decision by the Austrian Administrative Court (VwGH) regarding the Lower Austria Otter Regulation of 2019. The VwGH acknowledged that this regulation affected Union environmental law, specifically a species protected under the Fauna-Flora-Habitat Directive. Moreover, it affirmed that the regional government, as the responsible authority, has the power to repeal or modify its regulation at any time. Importantly, the VwGH stated that recognized environmental organizations already have a right to participate in administrative procedures, highlighting the obligation of Austrian authorities and courts to ensure effective legal protection. This underscores the need for preliminary legal protection against the enforcement of regulations affecting protected species. While the VwGH did not provide specific details about the review rights of recognized environmental organizations, the absence of procedural regulations in national law means that the Union law necessitates the provision of interim relief where the suspension of enforcement is not possible through existing administrative procedures. In practice, this means that interim relief should be available for species protection regulation reviews, either through the analogy of existing domestic law or directly based on Union law. This ensures the effectiveness of subsequent administrative or judicial decisions.