Skip to main content

Taking access to justice seriously: diffuse interests and actio popularis. Why not?

Aleksandra Aragão and Ana Celeste Carvalho

elni Review 2017, Issue 2, pp. 42-48. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2017.006

The authors of this contribution explain the Portuguese system of actio popularis: according to the authors the most favourable of all with regard to locus standi in environmental matters. They argue that the dichotomy between public and private environmental damage underlying the construction of the right of access to justice is not an accurate representation of the real life social relations concerning the environment. This is where the concept of diffuse interests, adopted in Portuguese constitutional law comes in. 

Access full article

References

  1. Commission of the European Communities, 2003, Proposal for a Directive Of The European Parliament And Of The Council on access to justice in environmental matters Brussels, COM (2003) 624 final.
  2. European Commission, 2017, Communication from the Commission of 28.4.2017, Commission Notice on Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, C(2017) 2616 final.
  3. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2011, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011. Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky - Slovakia. Environment - Aarhus Convention - Public participation in the decision-making process and access to justice in environmental matters - Direct effect (Case C-240/09).
  4. Alexandra Aragão, “Les intérêts diffus, instruments pour la justice et la démocratie environnementale” “La représentation de la Nature devant le juge: Approches comparative et prospective”, Camproux-Duffrène, Marie Pierre and Sohnle, Jochen (dir.), Vertigo, la Revue Électronique en Sciences de l’Environnement, 2015.
  5. Odette Domingues, “Intérêt collectif et action en justice en matière d’environnement. Analyse Comparée France-Portugal”, Textos Ambiente e Consumo Vol. III, Centro de Estudos judiciários, Lisboa, 1996, p. 302.
  6. António Carlos de Araújo Cintra, Ada Pellegrini Grinover e Cândido R. Dinamarco, Teoria Geral do Processo, Malheiros Editores, São Paulo, 1997.
  7. Miguel Teixeira de Sousa, “A Legitimidade Popular na Tutela dos Interesses Difusos” Lex, Lisboa, 2003.
  8. Portuguese Supreme Administrative Court, case no. 01362/12 of 28 January 2016.
  9. Massimo Severo Gianninni, La tutela degli interessi colletivi nei procedimenti amministrativi”, Le azioni a tutela di interessi colletivi, Padova, 1976, apud Odette Domingues, “Intérêt collectif et action en justice en matière d’environnement. Analyse Comparée France-Portugal”, T extos Ambiente e Consumo Vol. III, Centro de Estudos Judiciários, Lisboa, 1996, p. 306.
  10. Antonio Gidi, Las acciones colectivas y la tutela de los derechos difusos, colectivos e individuales en Brasil. Un modelo para países de derecho civil, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, 2004.
  11. Luis filipe Colaço Antunes, “Colocação Institucional, Tutela Jurisdicional dos Interesses Difusos e ‘Acção popular de Massas’”, Textos Ambiente, Centro de Estudos Judiciários, Lisboa, 1994.
  12. André Gervais, “Quelques réflexions à propos de la distinction des droits et des interêts”, Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Roubier, tome 1, Dalloz et Sirey, Paris, 1971.
  13. Acesso à Justiça e tutela dos interesses difusos, Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual, Vol. V, January June 2010.
  14. Rodolfo Camargo Mancuso, Interesses difusos. Conceito e legitimação para agir, Editora Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo, 1997.
  15. Luis Filipe Colaço Antunes, “Reconstituição Histórica da Tutela dos Interesses Difusos”, O Sagrado e o Profano, Homenagem a A. J. S. da Silva Dias, Revista de História e Teoria das Ideias, Faculdade de Letras, Coimbra, 1987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14195/2183-8925_9-3_14.
  16. Judgment no. 047 545, of 29.4.2003.
  17. Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, no. 0469/15 of 18 June 2015.
  18. Relações jurídicas poligonais, ponderação ecológica de bens e controlo judicial preventivo”, Revista jurídica do Urbanismo e do Ambiente, no. 1, 1994.
  19. Gomes Canotilho, “Privatismo, Associativismo e Publicismo no Direito do Ambiente”, Textos Ambiente e Consumo Vol. I, Centro de Estudos judiciários, Lisboa, 1996.
  20. Ada Pellegrini Grinover, “Novas tendências na tutela Jurisdicional dos interesses difusos”, Revista do Curso de Direito da Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, vol 13, no. 1/2 1984.
  21. World Class Actions. A Guide to Group and representative Actions Around the Globe, de Paul G. Karlsgodt (editor), Oxford University Press, 2012.
  22. Nuno Sérgio Marques Antunes, O Direito de Acção Popular no Contencioso Administrativo Português, Lex, Lisboa, 1997.
  23. Robin de Andrade, O Direito de Acção Popular no Contencioso Administrativo Português, Coimbra editora, Coimbra, 1967.
  24. Portuguese Supreme Administrative Court case no. 01362/12, 28-01-2016.
  25. Law 83/95, of August 31st, 1995, popular action and the right of citizens to participate in administrative procedures in order to influence decisions of Public Administration (subject not related to collective redress.
  26. Judgment by the Full Supreme Court of 29 June 2004 - case. no. 01334/03.
  27. Decision of 23 January 2013, case no. 10452 of the Southern Central Administrative Court [line breaks omitted].
  28. Decision of 31 May 2013, case no. 132 of the Northern Central Administrative Court.
  29. Ada Pellegrini Grinover, “Significado Social, Político e Jurídico da Tutela dos Interesses Difusos”, Revista de Processo no. 97, year 25, January March 2000.
  30. Mauro Cappelletti and Bryant Garth, “The Protection of Diffuse, Fragmented and Collective Interests in Civil Litigation”, W. Habscheid (editor), Effectiveness of judicial protection and constitutional order (Gieseking-Verlag, Bielefeld, 1983).