Abstract
EDITORIAL
A lively parliamentary start to 2022 saw a litany of Bills introduced into the UK Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and Scottish Parliament. The Bills range from the ambitious (such as the Petroleum (Amendment) Bill 2021–22, seeking to prohibit licensing to search and bore for petroleum and onshore fracking), to the sensible (such as the Motor Vehicle Tests (Diesel Particulate Filters) Bill 2021–22, which will set standards for emissions particulate sensing technology) and future-proofing (such as the Education (Environment and Sustainable Citizenship) Bill 2021–22 which will ensure the national curriculum includes teaching on sustainable citizenship and protection of the environment).
Meanwhile, in the courts, Friends of the Earth (“FoE”) brought an attention-grabbing judicial review. FoE sought to challenge the government's decision to provide export finance and support in relation to a liquefied natural gas project in Mozambique. This was on the basis that it conflicted fundamentally with the UK's commitments under the Paris Agreement. The Court disagreed with FoE's submissions and held that the government was to be afforded an enhanced margin of appreciation given that the decision-making involved scientific, technical and predictive assessments. In another case, a judicial review was launched by the National Farmers’ Union which sought to challenge the Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021. This case, and others, are discussed further in the “case law” section of this update.
Read on for more updates.
Update
Jennifer Wardle and Anna McClean
Matthew R Crowe , Verity Adams and Shada Mellor
EU LEGISLATION AND TEXTS
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/648 of 15 February 2022 amending Annex XI to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the amount of Union support for types of intervention for rural development for financial year 2023
This Regulation sets out the amount of money each Member State will receive from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development to invest in common agricultural policies, as set out in Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 between 2023 to 2027. The total for this period across all twenty-seven countries is EUR 61 370 228 600.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri = CELEX%3A32022R0648&qid = 1651415499184
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for setting ecodesign requirements for sustainable products and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC, COM/2022/142 final
The main objectives of this Regulation are to reduce the negative life cycle environmental impacts of products and improve the functioning of the internal market. These objectives seek to resolve the problems and their causes. They reflect the fact that products are available on the internal market that generate unnecessary adverse environmental impacts. This Regulation also contributes to the objectives of EU industrial policy to boost the supply of and demand for sustainable goods, deliver on sustainable production, and ensure a level playing field for products sold on the internal market. Industry needs harmonised requirements applicable across the board, efficient means to comply with them, proper enforcement, reinforced market surveillance and customs controls based on a risk analysis.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri = CELEX%3A52022PC0142&qid = 1651491581676
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and better information
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Articles 114 and 169 TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 38) require a high level of consumer protection in the EU. EU consumer legislation also contributes to the proper functioning of the single market. It aims to make business-to-consumer relations fair and transparent and ultimately support the welfare of European consumers and the EU economy. This proposal aims at enhancing consumer rights by amending two directives that protect the interest of consumers at Union level: the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC and the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU. More specifically, the proposal aims to contribute to a circular, clean and green EU economy by enabling consumers to take informed purchasing decisions and therefore contribute to more sustainable consumption. It also targets unfair commercial practices that mislead consumers away from sustainable consumption choices. Furthermore, it ensures a better and more consistent application of EU consumer rules.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri = CELEX%3A52022PC0143&qid = 1651491581676
Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/455 of 14 March 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 as regards the update of the list of aircraft operators which performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator, C/2022/1598
This Regulation amends the list of aircraft operators.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri = CELEX%3A32022R0455&qid = 1651491581676
Council Regulation (EU) 2022/110 of 27 January 2022 fixing for 2022 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, ST/15090/2021/INIT
This Regulation sets out the fishing opportunities for particular fish stocks in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri = CELEX%3A32022R0110&qid = 1651491581676
DOMESTIC CASE LAW
Water
R (oao National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales) v Welsh Ministers [2022] EWHC 611 (Admin)
The claimant sought judicial review of the Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021 on 4 grounds: (1) the claimant had a legitimate expectation that a derogation would be included in the Regulations; (2) the defendant's reliance on certain factual information was Wednesbury unreasonable as it had been misinterpreted by the defendant's advisor; (3) the defendant failed to consider certain matters; (4) in making the regulations the defendant had breached the well-being duties and/or goals of section 3 and section 4 Well-Being of Future Generations Act (Wales) 2015 and had failed to promote Welsh Language in breach of section 78 Government of Wales Act 2006 and section 3 and section 4 Well-Being of Future Generations Act (Wales) 2015. The claimant sought a quashing order. The court rejected ground (1) stating that the words relied on by the claimant were not ‘clear, unambiguous and devoid of any relevant qualification’. The court rejected ground (2) and held that the defendant was entitled to rely on legal advice received in good faith, and in finding that the defendant had taken into account all relevant matters it rejected ground (3). The court held that the defendant had fulfilled its obligation to take account of well-being goals under section 3 Well-Being of Future Generation (Wales) Act 2015 and rejected ground (4).
National Farmers’ Union of England And Wales, R (On the Application Of) v Welsh Ministers [2022] EWHC 611 (Admin) (23 March 2022) (bailii.org)
Climate change
R (oao Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Secretary of State for International Trade/Export Credits Guarantee Department (UK Export Finance) [2022] EWHC 568 (Admin)
The claimant applied for judicial review of the secretary of state's decision to provide export finance and support in relation to a liquefied natural gas project in Mozambique on the basis that the decision was based on an error of law that the project was compatible with the UK's commitments under the Paris Agreement and had been based on a climate change report that had not adequately addressed and quantified the greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated. The court refused the application. It held that because the decision involved scientific, technical and predictive assessments, an enhanced margin of appreciation should be afforded to the decision-maker and that there was no legal or policy obligation to quantify Scope 3 emissions. The defendant was entitled to decide that it was not obliged to give climate change and the Paris Agreement greater prominence or weight than other factors. It held that the project was not be taken conclusively as contrary to the aims of the Paris Agreement simply because it would lead to the generation of emissions that would not be generated if the project was not developed. The defendant's approach, which involved recognition of conflicting aims and aspirations and an evaluative balancing exercise was not incorrect.
Friends Of The Earth Ltd, R. (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for International Trade Export Credits Guarantee Department (UK Export Finance) (“UKEF”) & Anor [2022] EWHC 568 (Admin) (15 March 2022) (bailii.org)
Environmental permitting
R v Finbar Breslin [2022] EWCA Crim 391
This case involved an appeal against the appellant's disqualification as a director for breach of their environmental permit on the grounds that (1) they should not have been disqualified and (2) the disqualification for 5 years was excessive. The court dismissed the appeal. It held that the appellant's significant culpability meant that a disqualification order was appropriate punishment. The court also held that the 5 year disqualification was within the lower bracket of periods of disqualification that could be considered and that it reflected the significant culpability of the appellant.
R v Hillard [2022] EWCA Crim 301
An offender appealed against a confiscation order of £384,100 imposed after pleading guilty to operating a regulated facility without an environmental permit in breach of regulation 12 and regulation 30 Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The court dismissed the appeal and held that where an offender had operated a regulated facility without an environmental permit, the benefit obtained from criminal conduct was the revenue generated by the facility, not just the costs of the permit which ought to have been obtained.
Environmental information
R (oao Lewis) v Welsh Ministers [2022] EWHC 450 (Admin)
The claimant applied for a costs limit pursuant to the Aarhus Convention and r.45.41 Civil Procedure Rules in respect of costs the claimant might be ordered to pay in relation to a challenge of the defendant's decision to approve an outline business case to build a new cancer centre. The claimant was a member of a group of citizens, Save the Northern Meadow, seeking to protect the site concerned but issued proceedings in her own name. The court held that she had brought the claim as an individual, Save the Northern Meadow was a group of individuals with a common concern but had no legal personality. The claimant was therefore within the scope of r.45.43(2)(a). The court also held that the claim was an Aarhus Convention claim. It held that the definition of an Aarhus Convention claim in r.45.41(2)(a) required attention to be focused on the nature of the claim rather than the decision being made and that where a ground which brought the Aarhus Convention costs limit into operation was included in a claim in good faith, it was not appropriate to distinguish between the costs attributable to that ground and those attributable to other grounds.
Lewis, R (On the Application Of) v The Welsh Ministers (Rev2) [2022] EWHC 450 (Admin) (04 March 2022) (bailii.org)
Environmental impact assessment
R (oao Finch) v Surrey CC [2022] EWCA Civ 187
This case concerned an appeal against the dismissal of the appellant's claim for judicial review of the defendant's decision to grant planning permission to retain and expand an existing oil well site and to drill 4 new oil wells. The defendant provided an environmental impact assessment which was confined to the direct releases of greenhouse gases from the well site and did not extend to the subsequent use of the oil produced from the site. The court dismissed the appeal, rejecting the appellant's argument that anything attributable to the proposed development, including the environmental impact of the use of the ‘end product’ should be assessed. It held that in determining whether an impact of a proposed development constituted an indirect significant effect on the environment which required an assessment under regulation 4(2) Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, it was necessary to consider the degree of connection between the development and its putative effects. The court held that it was ultimately a question of fact and evaluation judgement for the planning authority. In relation to the environmental impact assessment of a crude oil extraction project, downstream greenhouse gas emission resulting from the future combustion of the refined oil were not legally capable of being an environmental effect requiring assessment.
Finch On Behalf of the Weald Action Group, R (On the Application Of) v Surrey County Council & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 187 (17 February 2022) (bailii.org)
Planning
R (oao Whitley Parish Council) v North Yorkshire Country Council [2022] EWHC 238 (Admin)
The claimant sought to challenge the lawfulness of the grant of planning permission to allow the extraction of Pulverised Fuel Ash and associated development on Green Belt land on a number of grounds, including that planning officer had incorrectly stated in their report to the planning committee that no weight could be given to local plan policy that was inconsistent with national policy. The court rejected this argument and held that it was permissible for planning officers, when giving their considered view of the matters of bearing, to express the view that no weight can be given to the policy concerned.
Whitley Parish Council, R (On the Application Of) v North Yorkshire County Council [2022] EWHC 238 (Admin) (09 February 2022) (bailii.org)
Waste
Durham Co Ltd v Durham County Council [2022] EWCA Civ 66
The appellant appealed against the summary dismissal of its claim that the respondent waste collection authority had breached state aid rules in art.107(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The appellant complained that it lost business because the local authority's charges for commercial waste collection were lower than its own and claimed that the local authority was able to charge lower prices because, by using the same vehicles, personnel and other resources that it used for its household waste collection services, it was able to subsidise the provision of its commercial waste collection services from council tax. It argued that this amounted to the provision of state aid and claimed damages and a declaration to that effect. The court dismissed the appeal. It held that the High Court had not erred in deciding that the appellant had no real prospect of succeeding in a claim that a local authority had breached state aid rules by providing commercial waste collection services at lower prices as a result of being subsidised by revenue from council tax. The court held that it would be a rare case in which a breach of state aid rules was sufficiently serious to merit an award of damages.
The Durham Company Ltd v Durham County Council [2022] EWCA Civ 66 (01 February 2022) (bailii.org)
Alab Environmental Services Ltd v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 109 (TC)
The appellant appealed against the assessment of the tax due on the basis that the material concerned qualified for the lower rate of landfill tax under section 42(2) Finance Act 1996 and the Landfill Tax (Qualifying Material) Order 2011 applicable to naturally occurring rocks and soils and ceramic or concrete materials containing no more than a small quantity of non-qualifying material. The question for determination by the court was whether the quantity of non-qualifying material was small within the meaning of section 63(2) Finance Act 1996. The court dismissed the appeal. It found that the material did in principle qualify for the lower rate of tax, but the absence of transfer note meant that it must, in accordance with art.6 and art.7 Landfill Tax (Qualifying Material) Order 2011, be treated as non-qualifying material liable to landfill tax at the standard rate.
ALAB ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LIMITED v Revenue & Customs (LANDFILL TAX - application to amend grounds of appeal - permission refused) [2022] UKFTT 109 (TC) (24 March 2022) (bailii.org)
Energy
Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 684 (Ch)
The defendant sought an order that the claimant's application be struck out. The claimant, a company with an interest in shale gas extraction through hydraulic fracturing, had applied for an order that the injunction they obtained preventing newcomers from entering their site and from damaging or removing equipment from their sites be discharged. The defendant was required to apply for the injunction to be discharged as there had been a material change of circumstance. However, they also applied for an order granting them permission to come back to court and make a fresh application for an injunction if there was a further material change in circumstances and not be disadvantaged by the fact that they have previously had an injunction which had ended on the ground of a material change in circumstances. The court discharged the injunction but made the point that if the claimant were to apply in the future for an injunction it will be a matter for the judge hearing that application whether the claimant's conduct ought to be taken into account and to what extent.
Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors [2022] EWHC 684 (Ch) (25 March 2022) (bailii.org)
EU CASE LAW
Association France Nature Environnement (Impacts temporaires sur les eaux de surface) Case C-525/20, 13 January 2022
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerned the first recital of Directive 2000/60/EC on a framework for Community policy in the field of water. The Court ruled that art.4 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community policy in the field of water must be interpreted as meaning that it is not up to the Member States, when assessing the compatibility of a particular programme or project with the objective of preventing the deterioration of water quality, not to take into account the temporary impacts of short duration and without long-term consequences on the status of surface water bodies. When, as part of the authorisation procedure for a program or project, the competent national authorities determine that it is likely to cause “deterioration”, within the meaning of art.4(1), under a), i), of this directive and as interpreted by the Court, of the state of a body of surface water, this program or this project may only be authorised if the conditions provided for in art.4(7)(a) to (d) of that directive are fulfilled.
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language = en&td = ALL&num = C-525/20
Commission v Portugal (Bruit dans l’environnement) Case C-687/20, 31 March 2022
This case concerned an action for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations under Directive 2002/49/EC. The focus of the case was on strategic noise maps relating to particular major roads in Portugal. The Court found that the Portuguese Republic, on the one hand, by not having established strategic noise maps relating to the major roads (named as PT_a_rd00410, PT_a_rd00458, PT_a_rd00460, PT_a_rd00462 and PT_a_rd00633), and, by not having communicated to the European Commission the information provided by these maps or the summaries of these action plans, had failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of art.7(2), art.8(2) and art.10(2) of Directive 2002/ 49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 25 June 2002, relating to the assessment and management of noise in the environment, read in conjunction with annex VI of this directive.
Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Réception des véhicules à moteur) Case C-873/19, 3 March 2022
This Advocate-General's opinion concerned a reference for a preliminary ruling. The facts focused on the decision of a national authority to authorise for vehicles manufactured by Volkswagen and equipped with a Euro 5 diesel engine, software installed in the electronic engine controller which, under certain external temperature conditions, reduces the recirculation of exhaust gases, which results in an increase in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. There was however an issue as to the standing of the claimant to bring such an action. The Advocate-General opined, in respect of the preliminary ruling, that Article 9(3) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, read in conjunction with art.47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that an approved environmental association, which is entitled to bring legal proceedings under national law, must be able to challenge before a national court an administrative decision granting EC type-approval of vehicles which may be contrary to art.5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information, a provision which prohibits, subject to certain exceptions, the use of defeat devices which reduce the effectiveness of emission control systems. The Advocate-General further said that art.5(2)(a) of Regulation No 715/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘need’ for a defeat device in terms of protecting the engine against damage or accident and for safe operation of the vehicle is not to be assessed in the light of the state of the art at the time when the EC type-approval is granted and it is not necessary to take account of circumstances other than that ‘need’ in order to examine the lawfulness of a defeat device.
Namur-Est Environnement Case C-463/20, 24 February 2022
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerned the conservation of natural habits and assessments of the effects of certain projects on the environment. The case focused on the interpretation of arts.1, 2 and 5 to 8 of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain projects public and private on the environment (OJ 2012, L 26, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2015, L 174, p. 44). The Court found that Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted at pursuant to art.16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, which authorises a developer to derogate from the applicable species protection measures, with a view to carrying out a project, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92, falls within the authorisation process of this project, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of that directive, in the event that, on the one hand, the said project cannot be carried out without the developer having obtained this decision and where, on the other hand, the competent authority to authorise such a project retains the possibility of assess the environmental impacts more strictly than was done in that decision. The Court further ruled that Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted, having regard in particular to arts.6 and 8 thereof, as meaning that the adoption of a prior decision authorising a developer to derogate from the applicable measures for the protection of species, with a view to carrying out a project, within the meaning of art.1(2)(a) of that directive, need not necessarily be preceded by public participation, provided that such participation is ensured effectively before the adoption of the decision to be taken by the competent authority for the possible authorisation of the project.
Chemours Netherlands v ECHA Case T-636/19, 23 February 2022
This case concerned a dispute between the applicant – a Dutch company – which imported and supplied particular ammonium substances that were registered with the European Chemicals Agency. The Agency included a particular substance on a list as likely to have serious effects on human health and the environment. This decision was subject to challenge. The Court dismissed the claim.
Bund Naturschutz in Bayern Case C-300/20, 22 February 2022
This request for a preliminary ruling concerned Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. The Court found that art.3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure which is intended to protect nature and the landscape and, to that end, lays down general prohibitions and makes provision for compulsory permits without laying down sufficiently detailed rules regarding the content, preparation and implementation of the projects referred to in Annexes I and II to Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment does not fall within the scope of that provision. The Court further ruled that art.3(4) of Directive 2001/42 must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure which is intended to protect nature and the landscape and, to that end, lays down general prohibitions and makes provision for compulsory permits without laying down sufficiently detailed rules regarding the content, preparation and implementation of projects does not fall within the scope of that provision.
Czech Republic v Poland (Mine de Turów) Case C-121/21, 3 February 2022
The Czech Republic sought a declaration that Poland had infringed several EU rules on the protection of the environment by adopting measures to extend the mining concession for a mine in Turów, Poland, until 2026. The Court found that Poland had infringed certain Directives on the protection of the environment by, among other matters, failing to conduct an environmental impact assessment, or publishing the content of the decision making authorising the mining activities.
FCC Česká republika Case C-43/21, 27 January 2022
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerned industrial emissions and what could be considered to be a substantial modification of an installation. The Advocate-General gave an opinion which posed the following question: ‘[h]ow should the concept of “substantial modification” of an installation be understood for the purposes of the application of the Directive on industrial emissions 2 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17). The Court found that art.3(9) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions must be interpreted as meaning that “substantial modification” of an installation also includes the extension of the period for landfilling the waste, without concomitant modification of the maximum approved dimensions of the landfill or its total capacity, where the extension of the authorisation is likely to lead to significant additional effects on the environment. The additional environmental effects are characterised by the fact that they had not yet been taken into account in a previous authorisation of the activity and in the framework of the public participation organised for this purpose.
Sātiņi-S Case C-238/20, 27 January 2022
This reference for a preliminary ruling arose in a claim for compensation for damage caused to an aquaculture farm by wild birds on a “Natura 2000” site. The compensation claimed was not paid in full as the purportedly maximum amount of money that could be granted had already been paid. The Court ruled that art.17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding the compensation granted by a Member State for the losses suffered by an economic operator as a result of the protective measures applicable in a Natura 2000 area under Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds being significantly less than the damage actually incurred by that operator. The Court further found that art.3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 717/2014 of 27 June 2014 on the application of arts.107 and 108 TFEU to de minimis aid in the fishery and aquaculture sector must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case where the compensation such as that described in point 2 of this operative part fulfils the conditions of art.107(1) TFEU, the de minimis ceiling of €30,000, provided for in that art.3(2) of Regulation No 717/2014, is applicable to that compensation.
Air Berlin Case C-165/20, 20 January 2022
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerned a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading. The reference arose in proceedings between the insolvency administrator of Air Berlin and the German government after the latter ceased the free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances. The Court found that art.3e of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2017/2392 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2017, must be interpreted as meaning that the number of greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge to an aircraft operator must, in the event of cessation of that operator's aviation activities during the period of greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in question, be reduced in proportion to the part of that period during which those activities are no longer carried out.
Commission v Slovakia (Bruit dans l’environnement) Case C-683/20, 13 January 2022
The European Commission took action against Slovakia. The Commission asked the Court to declare that, by failing to draw up action plans and by not communicating to the Commission summaries of action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under art.8(2) and under art.10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12), read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto. The Court found that, by failing, first, to draw up action plans for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to this judgment, and, secondly, by not communicating to the European Commission summaries of those action plans, the Slovak Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under art.8(2) and under art.10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, read in conjunction with Annex VI thereto.
Allemagne - Ville de Paris and Others v Commission Case C-177/19 P (Joined Cases C-177/19 P, C-178/19 P, C-179/19 P) (Appeal Case before the General Court T-339/16) 13 January 2022
This appeal concerned an action for annulment. The appellants sought to overturn the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 December 2018, Ville de Paris, Ville de Bruxelles and Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission (T-339/16, T-352/16 and T-391/16, EU:T:2018:927). The impugned decision annulled point 2 of Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6), and, secondly, ordered that the effects of the annulled provisions should be maintained pending the adoption, within a reasonable period, of new legislation replacing those provisions, which period could not exceed 12 months from the date on which that judgment took effect. The appeal court agreed to set aside the judgment of the General Court, but dismissed the action for annulment.
Regione Puglia Case C-110/20, 13 January 2022
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerned the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons. The Court ruled that Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons and art.4(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which lays down an upper limit on the size of the area that may be covered by a hydrocarbon exploration permit, but does not expressly prohibit granting the same operator more than one permit for adjacent areas that together cover an area exceeding that limit, provided that doing so is such as to ensure the best possible exercise of the exploration activity concerned from both a technical and economic point of view, and the achievement of the objectives pursued by Directive 94/22. It is also necessary, in the context of the environmental impact assessment, to assess the cumulative effect of projects likely to have significant effects on the environment, which are presented by that operator in its applications for hydrocarbon exploration permits.
CONSULTATIONS
NEWS AND MISCELLANEOUS
“ ‘Chemical cocktail’ polluting English rivers – MPs warn”, BBC News, 13th January 2022
Raw sewage, microplastics and slurry are coursing through all of England's rivers, putting health and nature at risk; agriculture and water companies are the biggest contributors to this ‘chemical cocktail’, the Environmental Audit Committee warns.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59955624
“Climate change: ‘Fragile win’ at COP26 summit under threat”, BBC News, 24th January 2022
COP26 President Alok Sharma has warned that progress made during the summit is at risk of “withering on the vine” unless commitments made are turned into action this year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60115969
“UK must move faster to insulate homes – climate chief”, BBC News, 10th February 2022
Chris Stark, head of the UK's Climate Change Committee, told the BBC he rates government policy on insulation as “very poor”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60290876
“World spends $1.8tn a year on subsidies that harm environment”, study finds, The Guardian, 17th February 2022
Research prompts warnings that humanity is ‘financing its own extinction’ after finding that at least $1.8tn (£1.3tn) every year is spent on subsidies driving the annihilation of wildlife and a rise in global heating.
“Wildfires Will Worsen, Warns UN Report”, EOS, 30th March 2022
According to a new United Nations Environment Programme report, as a result of anthropogenic climate change and other human activities, wildfires may increase in frequency by 14% by the end of the decade and 50% by 2100 if no preventative action is taken.
https://eos.org/articles/wildfires-will-worsen-warns-u-n-report
“EU and UN Environment Assembly: seeking to secure launch of negotiations for global agreement on plastics”, European Commission, 25th February 2022
Commissioner Sinkevičius, representing the EU at the fifth session of the UNEA, spoke of launching negotiations for a new global agreement on plastics, for which the EU already had over 140 partners on board.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_1314
“Environment Agency downgrading 93% of prosecutions for serious pollution”, The Guardian, 2nd March 2022
England's Environment Agency has downgraded 93% of prosecutions for serious pollution over four years, despite recommendations from frontline staff for the perpetrators to face the highest sanction.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/02/environment-agency-england-downgrading-prosecutions-serious-pollution-leaked-report
“Plastic pollution: Green light for ‘historic’ treaty”, BBC News, 2nd March 2022
Nearly 200 countries have agreed to start negotiations on an international agreement to take action on the “plastic crisis”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60590515
“EU to step up push for clean power as Ukraine conflict escalates”, Financial Times, 7th March 2022
Energy security concerns triggered by the war in Ukraine will step up moves towards energy self-sufficiency and clean power as Europe seeks to end its reliance on Russian fossil fuels, say climate envoys and policy experts.
https://www.ft.com/content/9e9e4710-cf90-41dd-8370-b2949ca2d2e2
“Climate change: Extreme weather warning systems for all ‘in five years’ “, BBC News, 23rd March 2022
Early warning systems to protect the entire world from extreme weather and climate disasters should be rolled out within five years, according to the UN.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.