56 - Digest of Aarhus Committee Decisions

The Aarhus Secretariat has published a new digest of the decisions of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (“ACCC”).

The ACCC was set up under Article 15 of the Convention (Review of Compliance) by Decision I/7 of the Meeting of the Parties. It can review a state Party’s compliance with the Convention. A review can be triggered by (a) submissions by another state Party, (b) submission by the state Party asking for review of its own compliance, (c) a referral by the Secretariat, (d) communication by members of the public, and (e) a request of the Meeting of the Parties.

Once the process has been triggered, the Committee will review the complaint for its preliminary admissibility. Para 20 of the Annex to Decision I/7 confirms the ACCC will not consider a communication that is (a) anonymous (b) an abuse of the right to make such a communication (c) manifestly unreasonable or (d) incompatible the provisions of Decision I/7.

Assuming the complaint is admissible, the Committee will consider its merits, invite representations from the communicant and state Party concerned (and anyone else, such as NGOs who wish to make such submissions), before issuing a reasoned decision.

Those decisions summarise the facts, evidence and issues and arguments, undertake an analysis of compliance, in the final concluding section adopt brief findings and a series of recommendations. See as a recent example ACCC/C/2017/147/Moldova.

Those reports go for consideration by the Meeting of the Parties. Often, though not always, they are endorsed. From that point on, the ACCC Decisions are likely to be considered as a matter to be taken into account in interpreting the Convention under Article 31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The new digest provides an extraordinarily helpful resource, detailing not just the ACCC Decision but the MOP where it was endorsed.

This blog post was written by Nick Grant.

----------------

Authors of the Aarhus blogs

– James Maurici KC – James has been in many of the leading cases on Aarhus costs including: R (RSPB) v SSJ [2017] 5 Costs L.O. 691; Case C 530/11 Commission v United Kingdom; Case C-260/11 Edwards v EA; R (Edwards) v EA (No.2) [2011] 1 Costs L.R. 70 and [2013] UKSC 78; and R (Edwards) v EA [2011] 1 W.L.R. 79. He has also appeared a number of times before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva, cases include: ACCC/C/2010/45; ACCC/C/2010/53; ACCC/C/2011/60; ACCC/C/2011/61; ACCC/C/2012/77; and ACCC/C/2014/100 and 101. He is currently acting for the UK Government on the Brexit communication to the Compliance Committee – ACCC/C/2017/150. He was one of the contributors to the Aarhus Convention: A Guide for UK Lawyers (2015) and he has written and lectured extensively on the Aarhus Convention.

– Jacqueline Lean – Jacqueline has also been instructed on a number of matters concerning the Aarhus Convention, including appearing (with James Maurici KC) for United Kingdom before the Aarhus Compliance Committee on two communications concerning the Government’s decision to proceed with HS2 (ACCC/C/100 & 101); representing the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Secretary of State in R (CPRE Kent) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2019] EWCA Civ 1230 in which the Court of Appeal considered the approach to summary assessment of costs at permission stage when an Aarhus costs cap applied; and acting for the Secretary of State in R (RSPB) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] Env LR 13, a challenge to the Government’s amendments to the Aarhus costs protections in the CPR (also with James Maurici KC). She is also a contributing author to Coppel’s ‘Information Rights’ on Environmental Information.

– Nick Grant – Nick joined Chambers in 2019 and has regularly advised on Aarhus related matters. He has represented the UK twice before the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, appearing with James Maurici KC in ACCC/C/2017/150 (the Withdrawal Act case) and unled in the admissibility hearing for ACCC/C/2022/194 (the free trade agreements case).

– Alex Shattock – Alex has been involved in a number of environmental claims including Friends of the Earth v SSLUHC (the Cumbria coal mine case: acting for Friends of the Earth in the Planning Inquiry and High Court, with Paul Brown KC and Toby Fisher); Cox and Ors v Oil and Gas Authority [2022] EWHC 75 (Admin) (representing Extinction Rebellion activists in a challenge to the Oil and Gas Authority’s Strategy, with David Wolfe KC and Merrow Golden); R (Hough) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 1635 (acting for the claimant in an environmental and equalities challenge to the controversial use of Napier Barracks as asylum seeker accommodation, with Alex Goodman KC and Charles Bishop). He regularly advises individual and NGO clients on Aarhus costs protection. Alex also has a keen interest in treaty law generally. He has a masters and PhD in public international law and has been involved in various treaty negotiations and treaty ratification processes.