Appunti caso D International Organizations

The Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a

-

Transboundary Context - This agreement sets out requirements for states to assess

the environmental impact of certain activities and notify and consult with other

potentially affected states.

Under EU Law:

The Euratom Treaty

- - This founding EU treaty establishes rules and regulations for

the use of nuclear energy within the EU, including requirements for environmental

protection.

EU Directives on Environmental Impact Assessment

- - These directives set out

procedures for assessing the environmental impacts of certain public and private

projects, including nuclear facilities.

The EU's principle of sincere cooperation

- - This obliges member states to support

the EU's objectives and actions, and refrain from measures that could jeopardize the

attainment of the EU's goals.

The definition of the EU's competences played a key role in this dispute. The EU has

shared competence with member states over environmental protection. While

Ireland has sovereignty over its nuclear energy policy, the EU can take action

to ensure member states uphold their environmental obligations under EU law. This

allowed the European Commission to argue that Ireland had breached its duties as an

EU member, even though the Mox Plant was located within Ireland's national territory.

The Commission could pursue infringement proceedings to enforce compliance with

the relevant EU environmental directives and the Euratom Treaty. So the multi-layered

legal framework, and the EU's competence to act in environmental matters, provided

the basis for the Commission's action against Ireland over the Mox Plant issue, despite

it being a domestic nuclear policy decision.

4. What are the main provisions of UNCLOS relied upon by the ECJ for

the purpose of its decision and why?

In its ruling against Ireland regarding the Mox Plant dispute, the European Court of

United Nations

Justice (ECJ) relied primarily on two main provisions of the

Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):

Article 206

- : This article requires states to assess the potential effects of

activities under their jurisdiction or control which may cause substantial

pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment.

The ECJ found that Ireland had failed to properly assess the potential

transboundary environmental impacts of the Mox Plant's operations, as required

by this UNCLOS provision.

Article 123

- : This article calls for states bordering an enclosed or semi-enclosed

sea to cooperate with each other in the exercise of their rights and in the

performance of their duties under UNCLOS.

The ECJ determined that Ireland had not adequately consulted with or informed

the UK, as the neighboring state that could be affected by the Mox Plant, as required

by this UNCLOS obligation to cooperate. reasons

The ECJ relied on these UNCLOS provisions for a few key :

>To establish that Ireland had an international legal duty to assess

environmental impacts and cooperate with affected states, even for a domestic

nuclear facility.

>To demonstrate that Ireland's violations of these UNCLOS obligations also

amounted to breaches of its EU law duties, particularly under the Euratom Treaty.

>To reinforce the principle that environmental protection and transboundary

cooperation are fundamental obligations for states under international law.

5. Coming back to question no. 1 and the objective of the European

Commission, what is the ruling of the ECJ on the first head of

complaint and what are the main supporting arguments?

The European Commission's First Complaint : The Commission argued that

Ireland failed to properly assess the environmental impact of the Mox Plant

before allowing it to begin operations, as required by EU directives on

environmental impact assessments.

The ECJ's Ruling : The ECJ ruled in favor of the European Commission on this

first complaint. The court found that Ireland had indeed failed to comply with its

obligations under the relevant EU environmental impact assessment (EIA) directives.

The ECJ's Main Supporting Arguments :

1) Ireland did not carry out an adequate EIA for the Mox Plant that considered

the full scope of potential environmental impacts, as required by the EIA Directive.

2) The EIA conducted by Ireland was limited in scope and did not sufficiently

evaluate the transboundary effects the plant's operations could have on the

marine environment.

3) Ireland did not properly inform and consult with other potentially affected

EU member states, as mandated by the EIA Directive's provisions on transboundary

impacts.

4) The ECJ referenced Ireland's obligations under the UNCLOS treaty to assess

environmental impacts and cooperate with neighboring states, noting these

international law duties reinforced the EU law requirements.

5) The court emphasized the fundamental importance of proper environmental

assessment and information-sharing, as core principles of EU environmental

policy that member states must uphold.

6. Coming back to question no. 1 and the objective of the European

Commission, what is the ruling of the ECJ on the second head of

complaint and what are the main supporting arguments?

The European Commission's Second Complaint : The Commission argued that

Euratom

Ireland had violated its obligations under EU law, particularly the

Treaty , by failing to properly cooperate and exchange information with the

UK, as the neighboring member state that could be affected by the Mox Plant's

operations.

The ECJ's Ruling : The ECJ also ruled in favor of the European Commission on

this second complaint. The court found that Ireland had indeed failed to fulfill its duty

of cooperation with the UK under the Euratom Treaty and general principles of EU law.

The ECJ's Main Supporting Arguments:

Euratom Treaty

1) The requires member states to facilitate the exchange of

information and consult with each other on matters related to nuclear safety

and the protection of public health.

2) Ireland did not adequately inform the UK or provide sufficient information

about the Mox Plant's potential environmental and public health impacts, despite the

UK's status as a neighboring, potentially affected state.

3) The ECJ cited the obligation under UNCLOS Article 123 for states bordering an

enclosed or semi-enclosed sea to cooperate with each other, noting this reinforced

Ireland's duties under EU law.

4) The court emphasized that the principle of sincere cooperation between

member states is a fundamental tenet of the EU, requiring them to support the Union's

objectives and refrain from measures that could jeopardize those aims.

5) By failing to properly cooperate and exchange information with the UK, the ECJ

ruled that Ireland had breached its obligations under the Euratom Treaty and

general EU law.

Case 2: Commune de Mesquer vs Total France SA

1. What are the parties to this dispute? How does the dispute itself

reach the ECJ?

The parties to this dispute are:

Commune de Mesquer

- : This is the local municipality of Mesquer, a commune in

France.

Total France SA

- : This is the French subsidiary of the multinational oil and gas

Total

company, .

The dispute reached the ECJ through the following process:

Erika

>The incident: In 1999, the oil tanker , which was transporting oil belonging to

Total France SA, broke apart and sank off the coast of Brittany, France. This

resulted in a major oil spill that caused extensive environmental damage along

the coastline, including the commune of Mesquer.

>Legal action: The Commune de Mesquer sued Total France SA in the French

courts, seeking reimbursement for the costs incurred in cleaning up the oil spill

and restoring the environmental damage.

>Referral to the ECJ: The French courts, faced with complex questions of European

Union (EU) law regarding the interpretation of the EU Waste Directive and the liability

of the oil company, referred the case to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.

>ECJ decision: In 2008, the ECJ issued its ruling on the case, addressing the key

legal questions and providing guidance to the French courts on how to determine

the liability of Total France SA for the environmental damage caused by the oil

spill.

2. What are the main questions that the ECJ is required to solve?

The main questions that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was required to solve in

the Commune de Mesquer v. Total France SA case were:

Whether the oil spilled from the sunken Erika tanker should be considered

>

"waste" within the meaning of the EU Waste Directive .

If the oil spill was considered "waste," whether Total France SA could be

>

held liable for the costs of the cleanup and environmental restoration, even

though the company did not have direct control over the tanker when the

incident occurred.

How the EU Waste Directive should be interpreted and applied in the

>

context of an accidental oil spill , where the waste was not intentionally discarded

but rather spilled into the environment due to the sinking of the tanker.

The scope of the "polluter pays" principle under EU environmental law, and

>

whether it could be applied to hold Total France SA responsible for the

environmental damage , even though the company did not directly cause the oil

spill.

3. How would you describe the legal framework (both under

international law and under EU law) applicable to the dispute?

The legal framework applicable to the Commune de Mesquer v. Total France SA dispute

involves both international law and EU law:

International Law:

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

-The (UNCLOS) - This treaty

establishes the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans,

including provisions related to marine pollution.

The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage

- (CLC)

- This convention sets a framework for determining liability and compensation for

oil pollution damage from ships.

EU Law:

The EU Waste Framework Directive

- - This directive establishes the legal

"waste"

definition of and the principles for waste management, including the

"polluter pays" principle.

The Environmental Liability Directive

- - This directive establishes a framework

for environmental liability based on the "polluter pays" principle, aimed at

preventing and remedying environmental damage.

The Oil Pollution Directive

- - This directive sets out measures to ensure

effective response to oil pollution incidents in the EU.

4. What are the findings of the ECJ with regard to the first, second and

third questions? What are the main supporting arguments?

The key findings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) with regard to the main

questi