JOIN
PLANNING SANITY
HERE

HELP US HELP YOU
our work relies upon your donations and subscriptions to survive
MAKE
A DONATION TO
PLANNING SANITY
HERE
Email
Planning
Sanity
HOME
PAGE
PLANNING SANITY HELPLINE
0871 750 3992
Calls 10p per minute

OTHER
FORUMS
Important
Legal
Notice
The following colour scheme applies to docs on this site Word Docs PDF Docs HTML Docs
Return to Court Judgments Centre

EUROPEAN COURT JUDGMENTS AND RULINGS

The European Environmental Law Database

The European Environmental Law Database contains most cases decided by the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance related to issues of European Environmental Law.

Go to the searchable database (Click the search button to obtain a (Reverse) Chronological list of all cases in the Database). The database can be searched on case number, dates etc. and even on words occuring in the text.

Searchable database of recent judgements of the ECJ and CFI
at the ECJ homepage.

Weekly proceedings of the Court of Justice / Court of First Instance
at the ECJ homepage

Case-Law of the ECJ and CFI (in French)
at the European Documentation Center of the University of Valencia.

CASES

Case 302/86, Commission v. Denmark (Danish Bottles Case)
ECJ 20 September 1988, ECR [1988] 4607

Case C-300/89, Commission v. Council (Titandioxid)
ECJ 11 June 1991, ECR [1991] I-2867

Case C-2/90, Commission v. Belgium (Walloon Waste Case)
ECJ 9 July 1992, ECR [1992] I-4431

Waste is a good, but of a special nature; thus, if secondary EC legislation does not provide otherwise, it is to stay as close to its source as possible and the Walloon region can uphold its general import ban for non-hazardous waste under the 'rule of reason'. As there did exist a specific regime for hazardous waste which only allowed for import restrictions in specific cases, no general import ban is allowed as far as hazardous waste is concerned.

Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Andrea Francovich, Danila Bonifaci and Others v Italy
ECJ 19 November 1991, ECR [1991] I-5357

Liability of Member States for breaches of Community Law, non implementation of a directive

Case C-208/90, Theresa Emmott v Minister for Social Welfare and Attorney General
ECJ 25 July 1991, ECR [1991] I-4269

Case C-355/90, Commission v Spain (Marismas de Santoña)
ECJ 2 August 1993, [1993] ECR I-4221

Case C-45/91, Commission v Greece (Chania Waste)
ECJ 7 April 1992, [1992] ECR I-2509

Case C-155/91, Commission v. Council (Legal basis waste directive)
ECJ 17 March 1993, ECR [1993] I-939

  • Case C-271/91, M.H. Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority
    ECJ 2 August 1993, ECR [1993] I-4367; [1993] 3 C.M.L.R. 293

    Case C-91/92, Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl.
    ECJ 14 July 1994, ECR [1994] I-3325
  • Case C-334/92, Teodoro Wagner Miret v Fondo de Garantía Salarial, ECJ 16 December 1993, ECR [1993] I-6911

    Case C-379/92, Peralta
    ECJ 14 July 1994, ECR [1994] I-3453

    Case C-422/92, Commission v Germany (German Waste Export) - including the opinion of Advocate General
    ECJ 10 May 1995, ECR [1995] I-1097

    Joined cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur SA and Factortame Ltd and others
    ECJ 5 March 1996, ECR [1996] I-1029

    Liability of Member States for breaches of Community Law

    Case C-187/93, European Parliament v Council
    ECJ 28 June 1994, ECR [1994] I-2857

    Case C-392/93, The Queen v. H.M. Treasury ex parte: British Telecommunications plc.
    ECJ 26 March 1996, ECR [1996] I-1631; [1996] 2 C.M.L.R. 217

    Liability of Member States for breaches of Community Law

    Case C-5/94, The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland)
    ECJ 23 May 1996, ECR [1996] I-2553; [1996] 2 C.M.L.R. 391

    In Joined Cases C-178/94, C-179/94, C-188/94, C-189/94 and C-190/94, Erich Dillenkofer and others,
    ECJ 8 October 1996, ECR [1996] I-4845
    Liability of Member States for breaches of Community Law, Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays and package tours

    Case 194/94, CIA Security
    ECJ 30 April 1996, ECR [1996] I-2201

    The case which is causing quit a stir in The Netherlands at the moment... Following the reasoning of the European Court of Justice where a Belgian law which was not properly notified was concerned, Dutch judges might be forced to decline to apply some 400 Dutch technical regulations which have not been notified in accordance with the directive 83/189.

    Case C-202/94, Godefridus van der Feesten
    ECJ 8 February 1996, ECR [1996] I-355 

    Joined Cases C-283/94, C-291/94 and C-292/94, Denkavit Internationaal BV (C-283/94), VITIC Amsterdam BV (C-291/94) and Voormeer BV (C-292/94)
    ECJ 17 October 1996, ECR [1996] I-5063

    Case C-44/95, Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
    ECJ 11 July 1996, ECR [1996] I-3805

    Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds does not allow for economic reasons standing in the way of determining protection areas. Once the site has been established, Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of the natural habitats of wild fauna and flora does allow for actions affecting the site on grounds of a social or economic nature.

    Joined cases C-58/95, C-75/95 a.o., Gallotti a.o.
    ECJ 12 September 1996, ECR [1996] I-4345

    Case C-168/95, Luciano Arcaro
    ECJ 26 September 1996, ECR [1996] 4705

    Case C-72/95, Aannemersbedrijf P.K. Kraaijeveld BV e.a. v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland (Dutch dikes)
    ECJ 24 October 1996, ECR [1996] I-5403

    Case C-13/96, Bic Benelux v Belgium
    ECJ 20 March 1997 & Opinion of AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer of 28 November 1996, nyr

    An obligation to affix specific markings to products which are subject to an environmental tax forms a technical regulation within the meaning of Directive 83/189/EEC. As Belgium, in spite of the advice of the Legislative Division of the Conseil d'État, did not notify the measure to the Commission, the measure cannot be relied upon against individuals.

    Joined Cases C-304/94, C-330/94, C-342/94 and C-224/95, Euro Tombesi and Adino Tombesi (C-304/94), Roberto Santella (C-330/94), Giovanni Muzi and Others (C-342/94), Anselmo Savini (C-224/95),
    ECJ 25 June 1997, n.y.r.

    Case C-279/94, Commission v Italy
    ECJ 16 September 1997, n.y.r.

    Italy did not notify its rules on asbestos, so these rules cannot be applied immediately. However, the Court underlines that even if  all the provisions contained in the law in question are notified to the Commission, this does not prevent the Italian Republic from bringing into force immediately, and therefore without waiting for the results of the examination procedure provided for by the Directive 83/189, the provisions which do not constitute technical regulations. 

    Case C-321/95 P, Greenpeace v Commission and Opinion of AG Cosmas
    ECJ 2 April 1998, nyr


    This is the appeal against the decision by the CFI in the case Case T-585/93, Greenpeace v Commission where the environmental organisation was not granted locus standi. As far as the AG is concerned, the ECJ is also not to give Greenpeace access to this Court. The in depth argumentation by the AG makes for interesting reading material. The ECJ comes to the same conclusion as the AG, without really touching upon most of the arguments brought forward by the environmental organisation (for instance the legal vacuuum where decisions made by the Commission are concerned).

    Case C-3/96, Commission v Netherlands
    ECJ 19 May 1998, n.y.r.

    According to the Commission, The Netherlands should have classified more sites as Special Protection Areas (SPAs). In addition, the part of the Waddensea which was designated as a Special Protection Area is too small. The ECJ underlines that EC law requires Member States to classify territories which are most suitable for the conservation of certain species as SPAs. It also makes clear, that economic criteria may not be taken into account when selecting and defining the boundaries of SPAs, as the Court had already explained in an earlier judgment (Case C-44/95, Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds ). The Netherlands thus infringed its obligations. It will be interesting to see whether this case will influence the outcome of the cases before the Dutch court on drilling for gas in the Northsea area not designated as SPA...

    Case C-67/97, Anklagemyndighed v. Ditlev (Danish Bees)
    ECJ 3 December 1998, n.y.r.

    Case C-150/97, Commission v. Portuguese Republic
    ECJ 21 January 1999, n.y.r.

    Case C-207/97 Commission v. Kingdom of Belgium
    ECJ 21 January 1999, n.y.r.

    Case C-347/97 Commission v. Kingdom of Belgium
    ECJ 21 January 1999, n.y.r.

    Joined Cases C-164/97 and C-165/97 European Parliament v Council
    ECJ 25 February 1999, n.y.r.

    Case C-100/96 The Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd
    ECJ 11 March 1999, n.y.r.

    Case C-340/96 Commission v. United Kingdom
    ECJ 22 April 1999, n.y.r.

    Case C-392/96 Commission v. Ireland
    ECJ 21 September 1999, n.y.r.

    Case C-166/97 Commission v. French Republic
    ECJ 18 March 1999, n.y.r.

    Case C-293/97 The Queen v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex parte: H.A. Standley and others, D.G.D. Metson and others, Intervener: National Farmers' Union
    ECJ 29 April 1999, n.y.r.

    Case C-217/97 Commission v. Federal Repblic of Germany
    ECJ 9 September 1999, n.y.r.

    Case C-108/98 RI.SAN Srl v. Municipality of Ischia, GEPI SpA, now called Italia Investimenti SpA (Italinvest SpA)
    ECJ 9 September 1999, n.y.r.

    Case C-319/97 Aklagaren v. Antoine Kortas
    ECJ 1 June 1999, n.y.r.
    The ECJ is of the opinion, that national standards that are stricter than those laid down in a Directive based on Article 100A can only be enforced after the Commission reacted on a 100A para 4 request. Even if the Commission does not respond within a reasonable period of time, the Member States still are not allowed to apply their national, stricter standards. Fortunately, the new EC version of art. 100A - art. 95 in the Amsterdam numbering that applies since 1 May 1999 - sets a time limit for the Commission to react. If the Commission stays silent, the Member States are allowed to apply their stricter national rules.

    Case C-435/97 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and others v. Autonome Provinz Bozen and others
    ECJ 16 September 1999, n.y.r.

    Case T-585/93, Greenpeace v Commission
    CFI 9 August 1995, ECR [1996] II-2205

    Appel decided upon on 2 April 1998 (see above).

    Case T-411/94, Associazione agricoltori della provincia di Rovigo e.a. v Commission (Inadmissibility)
    CFI [1995] II-455

    Access to justice is denied by the Court of First Instance; meanwhile, the appeal in this case has been decided upon, with the same result (Case C-142/95 P, ECJ 12 December 1996, nyr).

    Case T-219/95 R, French Nuclear Tests
    President CFI 22 December 1995, ECR [1995] II-3051

    Case T-228/95 R, Leghold Traps
    President CFI 12 February 1996, ECR [1996] II-111

    Case T-105/95, WWF UK v Commission
    CFI 5 March 1997, nyr

    The Commission has the obligation to undertake a genuine balancing of the interests involved as required by the Code of Conduct on access to Commission documents.
  • Decision 94/90 on public access to Commission Documents
  • Decision 1999/5, Swedish sweeteners
    The first Commission decision ex Art. 100A para 4 EC Treaty which does not allow a country, Sweden in this case, to upkeep its national laws that are stricter than the EC Directives.
  • Top of Page CfPS HOME PAGE


    THIS CAMPAIGN IS FUNDED FROM YOUR DONATIONS - PLEASE GIVE GENEROUSLY

    FUNDRAISING SECTION