Access to justice regarding plans and programmes related to the environment – Polish law in the light of Article 9.3 of the Aarhus Convention

• Authors: Magdalena Bar

Title variants

PL

Dostęp do sądu w odniesieniu do planów i programów mających wpływ na środowisko – regulacje polskie w świetle artykułu 9.3 Konwencji z Aarhus

Abstracts

PL

Artykuł 9.3 Konwencji z Aarhus nakazuje zapewnienie członkom społeczeństwa (spełniającym określone kryteria, jeśli dana Strona Konwencji takie określi) dostępu do procedury odwoławczej (dostępu do sądu) w celu kwestionowania działań lub zaniechań osób prywatnych lub władz publicznych naruszających postanowienia jej prawa krajowego w dziedzinie środowiska. Zgodnie z art. 2.4 Konwencji, za „członków społeczeństwa” należy uznać także organizacje pozarządowe. Zgodnie z orzecznictwem Komitetu ds. Przestrzegania Konwencji z Aarhus, do działań władz publicznych objętych wymaganiami artykułu 9.3 Konwencji, należą m.in. przyjmowane przez te organy plany i programy, których realizacja może mieć wpływ na środowisko. Zgodnie z przepisami prawa polskiego (często w ślad za wymaganiami prawa unijnego), organy administracji opracowują cały szereg takich planów i programów. Dokumenty te opracowywane są albo przez władze regionalne lub lokalne (organy samorządowe lub administrację rządową w województwie), albo na szczeblu centralnym. Tymczasem prawo polskie daje bardzo ograniczone możliwości zaskarżania planów lub programów. W odniesieniu do dokumentów tworzonych na szczeblu centralnym możliwości takich nie ma w ogóle, a w odniesieniu do dokumentów tworzonych na niższych szczeblach – pewne, ograniczone, uprawnienia w tym zakresie przysługują tylko podmiotom prywatnym, których interes prawny został naruszony. Całkowicie wykluczona jest możliwość zaskarżania planów lub programów przez organizacje pozarządowe. Sytuację taką należy uznać za niezgodną z Konwencją z Aarhus.

EN

Article 9.3 of the Aarhus Convention grants members of the public (meeting certain requirements, if a Party to the Convention so specifies) access to a review procedure (access to justice) to challenge acts or omissions by private persons or public authorities that contravene provisions of its national law relating to the environment. According to Article 2.4 of the Convention, non-governmental organisations should also be considered as "members of the public". According to the jurisprudence of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, the activities of public authorities covered by the requirements of Article 9.3 of the Convention include adoption of plans and programmes which may have an impact on the environment. In accordance with the Polish law (often following the requirements of EU law), administrative authorities adopt a whole range of plans and programmes relating to the environment or having an impact on the environment. These documents are developed either by regional or local authorities (self-governmental authorities or regional government administration) or at the central level. Polish law provides very limited opportunities to challenge plans or programmes. With respect to documents created at the central level, there are no such possibilities at all, and with respect to documents created at lower levels, certain, limited, rights in this respect are granted only to private entities whose legal interest has been violated. The possibility for NGOs to challenge plans or programmes is completely excluded. Such a situation should be considered non-compliant with the Aarhus Convention.

Keywords

EN

access to justice; Aarhus Convention; challenging of plans and programmes; environmental plans and programmes

PL

prawo do sądu; konwencja z Aarhus; zaskarżanie planów i programów; plany i programy dotyczące środowiska

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Opolski
• Journal: Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 21
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 33-50

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Magdalena Bar

• Jendrośka Jerzmański Bar i Wspólnicy. Prawo gospodarcze i ochrony środowiska

References

• The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention) signed on 25 June 1998 in Aarhus, Denmark (publication in Poland: Journal of Laws No. 78, item 706).
• Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Official Journal C 202, 7/06/2016 P. 0047-0388).
• Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Official Journal L 206, 22/07/1992 P. 0007-0050).
• Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p. 1-44).
• Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1-73).
• 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 L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12-25).
• Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27-34).
• Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3-30).
• Commission Notice on Access to Environmental Justice. Communication from the Commission of 28.4.2017; C(2017) 2616 final.
• Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Improving access to justice in environmental matters in the EU and its Member States. Brussels, 10.2020 COM(2020) 643 final.
• Act of 14 June 1960 – Code of Administrative Procedure (Journal of Laws of 2022 item 2000 as amended).
• Act of 8 March 1990 on community self-government (Journal of Laws of 2023, item 40).
• Act of 28 September 1991 on forests (Journal of Laws of 2022 item 672 as amended).
• Act of 13 October 1995 – Hunting Law (Journal of Laws of 2022 item 1173 as amended).
• Act of 5 June 1998 on province self-government (Journal of Laws 2022, item 1526).
• Act of 5 June 1998 on regional self-government (Journal of Laws of 2022, item 2094).
• Act of 27 April 2001 – Environmental Protection Law (Journal of Laws of 2022 item 2556 as amended).
• Act on 27 March 2003 on spatial planning and development Journal of Laws of 2022 item 503 as amended).
• Act of 16 April 2004 on Nature Protection (Journal of Laws of 2022 item 916 as amended).
• Act of 23 January 2009 on the governor and government administration in the region (Journal of Laws of 2022, item 135).
• Act of 14 December 2012 on waste (Journal of Laws of 2022 item 699 as amended).
• Act of 20 July 2017 – Water Law (Journal of Laws of 2022 item 2625 as amended).
• The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC/C/2004/6, Kazakhstan).
• The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC/C/2005/11, Belgium).
• The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC/C/2006/18, Denmark).
• The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC/C/2008/31, Germany).
• The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC/C/2011/58, Bulgaria).
• The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC/C/2011/61, United Kingdom).
• The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC/C/2014/105, Hungary).
• The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC/C/2014/120, Slovakia).
• Janecek, the Court of Justice, judgement of 25 July 2008 (C-237/07).
• Lesoochranárske zoskupenie, the Court of Justice, judgement of 8 March 2011 (C-240/09).
• Lesoochranárske zoskupenie, the Court of Justice, judgement of 8 November 2016 (C-243/15).
• Protect, the Court of Justice, judgement of 20 December 2017 (C-664/15).
• European Commission vs Poland, the Court of Justice, judgement of 2 March 2023 (C-432/21).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 28 June 2007 (II OSK 1596/06).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 14 April 2011, the Supreme Administrative Court (I OSK 5/11).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, decision of 8 October 2013 (II OZ 787/13).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 25 March 2014 (II OSK 355/14).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 5 November 2014 (II OSK 977/13).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 20 November 2014 (I OSK 1747/14).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 10 February 2017 (II OSK 1344/15).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 15 February 2017 (II OSK 1277/15).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 22 February 2017 (II OSK 1497/15).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 7 March 2017 (II OSK 1587/15).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 7 March 2017 (II OSK 1679/15).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 21 March 2017 (II OSK 2865/15).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 30 March 2017 (II OSK 1941/15).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 20 April 2017 (II GSK 1912/15).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 31 May 2017 (II OSK 2298/15).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 20 June 2017 (II OSK 2648/15).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 17 October 2017 (II OSK 2559/16).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, verdict of 14 November 2017 (II OSK 457/16).
• The Supreme Administrative Court, decision of 23 January 2018 (II OSK 3218/17).
• Secondary sources
• Bar, Magdalena, and Jerzy Jendrośka. 2020. Analiza prawna dotycząca prawidłowości wdrożenia wymagań konwencji z Aarhus. Raport Fundacji WWF Polska.
• Dauter, Bogusław, Bogusław Gruszczyński, Andrzej Kabat, and Małgorzata Niezgódka-Medek. 2009. Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi. Komentarz. Warszawa.
• Ebbeson, Jonas, Helmut Gaugitsch, Jerzy Jendrośka, Stephen Stec, and Fiona Marshall. 2014. The Aarhus Convention. An Implementation Guide. United Nations. Geneva.
• Eliantonio, Mariolina, Chris W. Backes, Cornelis H. van Rhee, Taru N.B.M. Spronken, and Anna Berlee. 2013. Standing up for Your Right(s) in Europe. A Comparative Study on Legal Standing (Locus Standi) before the EU and Member States’ Courts. Cambridge–Antwerp–Portland: Intersentia.
• Fasoli, Elena, and Alister McGlone. 2018. The Non-Compliance Mechanism Under the Aarhus Convention as ‘Soft’ Enforcement of International Environmental Law: Not So Soft After All! Netherlands International Law Review 65: 27-53. DOI: 10.1007/s40802-018-0102-0.
• Hauser, Roman, and Marek Wierzbowski (eds.). 2011. Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi. Komentarz. Warszawa.
• Jendrośka, Jerzy. 2011. Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee: Origins, Status and Activities. JEEPL 8(4): 301-314.
• Jendrośka, Jerzy. 2020. Access to Justice in the Aarhus Convention – Genesis, Legislative History and Overview of the Main Interpretation Dilemmas. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 17(4): 372-408.
• Jendrośka, Jerzy, and Lorenzo Squintani. 2020. The Courts as Guardians of the Environment – New Developments in Access to Justice and Environmental Litigation, Environment & Climate Change Law ICLG.com.
• Koester, Veit. 2007. The Compliance Committee of the Aarhus Convention – An Overview of Procedures and Jurisprudence. Environmental Policy & Law 83: 83-96.
• Ryall, Áine. 2019. The Aarhus Convention: Standards for access to justice in environmental matters. Environmental Rights: The Development of Standards, (eds.) Stephen J. Turner, Dinah L. Shelton, Jona Razzaque, Owen McIntyre, James R. May, 116-146. DOI: 10.1017/9781108612500.006. Cambridge University Press.
• Samvel, Gor. 2020. Non-Judicial, Advisory, Yet Impactful? The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee as a Gateway to Environmental Justice. Transnational Environmental Law 9(2): 211–38. DOI:10.1017/S2047102519000426.
• Woś, Tadeusz, Hanna Knysiak-Molczyk, and Marta Romańska. 2005. Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi. Komentarz. Warszawa.

Identifiers

DOI

10.25167/osap.5005

Biblioteka Nauki

11541747