elni Review 2010, Issue 1,  pp. 23-29. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2010.004

Procedures to receive a permission concerning environmental issues and procedures to receive a permit for building plants, highways, airports and so on often take long and not seldom very long. The administrative proceedings involved are very often complex. In several countries, there is an increasing desire to speed up administrative decision-making proceedings, especially in the field of complex infrastructure projects. The current economic crisis enhanced this necessity. Both developments, the incumbent economic crisis and the dissatisfaction with the current system of decision-making, resulted in planned or taken measures. With regard to these planned or implemented (legislative) measures, a possible clash may occur between, on the one hand, speedier decision-making and, on the other, the quality of the proceedings and the rights of the citizens.
In the course of the summer of 2009, the administrative law department of Maastricht University carried out a comparative law research on this issue. The research involved an exploration of the ways in which issues relating to complex decision-making procedures are dealt with in Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands and the experiences after certain acceleration measures have been implemented. Besides analysing the relevant statutes, case law and legal writings, the researchers interviewed stakeholders who are engaged in the decision making process in practice, like civil servants, judges, advocates and representatives of environmental groups. This article is based on a selection of findings of that research.

Access full article

References

1. Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (Act of Administrative Procedures).
2. Crisis and Recovery Act.
3. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2009, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2009. Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening v Stockholms kommun genom dess marknämnd. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Högsta domstolen - Sweden. Directive 85/337/EEC - Public participation in environmental decision-making procedures - Right of access to a review procedure to challenge decisions authorising projects likely to have significant effects on the environment (Case C-263/08).
4. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Aarhus Convention.
5. United Nations, the Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide, 2000.
6. Milieu Ltd., Measures on access to justice in environmental matters Art. 9(3)), country report for the Netherlands and summary report on the inventory of EU Member States’ measures on access to justice in environmental matters, July 2007.
7. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2001, Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2011. Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen eV v Bezirksregierung Arnsberg. Reference for a preliminary ruling: l’Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen - Germany. Directive 85/337/EEC - Environmental impact assessment - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/35/EC - Access to justice - Non-governmental organisations for the protection of the environment (Case C-115/09).
8. W.F. Spieth & M. Appel, Umfang und Grenzen der Einklagbarkeit von UVP-Fehlern nach Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz, NuR 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10357-009-1664-8.
9. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2009, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009. Commission of the European Communities v Ireland. Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Access to justice - Directive 2003/35/EC (Case C-427/07).
10. Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, 2008, Communication, ACCC/C/2008/23 (Morgan and Baker).
11. J.-M. Woehrling, Un aspect méconnu de la gestion administrative: la régulation des procédures et décisions illégales, Revue française d’administration publique 2004/3, No. 111, pp. 537-538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/rfap.111.0533.