61 - New Communications in 2025

In this blog we undertake a short review of the five new communications made in 2025.

ACCC/C/2025/212 (Hungary)

1. In this communication Hegedüs Melinda, a member of the public who is “dedicated to protecting animal’s rights”[1] sought to gather information regarding animal rights in Hungary, submitting FOI requests to local authorities seeking:
   
   “1. In which year did you last comply with your duty to carry out a dog census mandatory at least every three years, and how many dogs were found in the municipality? How many of these have a compulsory chip and rabies vaccination?
   
   2.How are the general rules on animal welfare (in particular: keeping dogs chained) checked? How many complaints were received in 2022 about improperly kept dogs, how many bans were imposed, how many dogs were confiscated and where were these animals taken?
   
   3. How are stray animals captured, do you have a shelter and how do you ensure that they are properly housed? How many captured stray dogs were placed or removed from the municipality in 2022? If you are affiliated with an organisation or contractor, please also send me the relevant contract of engagement.
   
   4. In 2022, what was the amount of animal welfare fines imposed on animal keepers?
   
   5. How much money did the State allocate from the central budget for animal welfare in 2022 and how was it spent? Did you provide any financial or other support to an animal welfare organization?"
   
   
2. Between February 2023 and July 2023, she claims of have sent c. 3,200 requests to local governments, of which only c. 1,800 were answered.[2] Of those that went unanswered, she has initiated c. 402 inquiry proceedings in the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (the “Authority”).[3] She claims the Authority refused to undertake the inquiry procedure regarding most of her requests,[4] and closed her case on the basis that she made too many FOI requests[5].
3. Ms Melinda claims a breach of Articles 4(1), 4(5), 9(1) and 9(4).[6] The Communication has been held admissible, at least on a preliminary basis until the matter is heard.[7]
4. In this communication De Petar Kardzhilov, a “qualified expert at Nuclear Transparency Watch” is seeking information regarding “extraordinary events” at Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant, which involved “dramatic changes in pressure and temperature” and which resulted in its reactors being disconnected from the Country’s power system on July 3 and August 1 2019.[8] 
   
   ACCC/C/2025/213 (Bulgaria)
   
5. Dr Kardzhilov made initial requests for information in August 2019, which were rebuffed on the basis that the information sought related to a third party, and they did not consent to its disclosure.. Judicial reviews were unsuccessful.[9] After two more “extraordinary events” took place in November 2019, further requests for information were made which again were rebuffed and, again, Judicial Review proceedings were unsuccessful.[10] Dr Kardzhilov claims a breach of Articles 3(1), 4(4)(d), 4(4) and 9(1).
6. Again, the ACCC considered the complaint admissible at least on a preliminary basis and the matter will now progress to a full review.[11]
   
   ACCC/C/2025/214 (Spain)
   
7. This Communication has been submitted by a coalition of the five largest environmental NGOs in Spain[12] (the “Coalition”) alleges a failure by Spain to comply with Article 4(7) of the Convention, arising from a failure to adopt the necessary legislative measures to ensure that any refusal of a request for access to environmental information is issued in writing, stating the reasons for refusal and providing information on the review procedure.[13] Fundamentally, the Spanish Supreme Court has held that if the authority does not respond within time, it is a deemed refusal.[14] This, the Coalition alleges, is incompatible with the Convention. As with the others it has been held admissible and will progress to a full consideration.[15]
   
   ACCC/C/2025/215 (Germany)
   
8. This communication has been submitted by Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V., a German eNGO, challenging the costs of administrative procedures in German courts. There is no costs cap, and the losing party can often be required to reimburse the cost of Court fees and lawyers fees for successful parties, and expert opinions commissioned by other parties. The communicant alleges this is a violation of art. 9(4) of the Convention. We await the ACCC’s decision on whether the complaint is admissible.
   
   ACCC/C/2025/216 (UK)
   
9. This communication has been filed by the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland, alleging a breach of Article 8 for failure to consult the public during the preparation of the Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session 1994 Amendment) (Protective Expenses Orders) 2024, which made changes to the Protective Expenses Orders for environmental appeals and JR claims in the Court of Session. The 2024 Order brought in three amendments, which the communicant accepts were “welcome”, but “fall substantially short of addressing all of the features of the PEO regime which the Committee has identified are non-compliant with the Convention. For example, the 2024 Act of Sederunt fails to resolve the problem that some private law claims remain out with the scope of the PEO rules” [16]. The ACCC has yet to decide on preliminary admissibility.

This blog post was written by Nick Grant.

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

[1] Communication §1 https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/Communication_Hegedus_Hungary_06.08.2024_redacted.pdf

[2] Ibid at §4

[3] Ibid at §5

[4] Ibid at §8

[5] Ibid at §10

[6] Ibid at §§20-23.

[7] Preliminary Determination of Admissibility: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/C212_Hungary_preliminary_determination_admissibility.pdf

[8] Communication https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/Communication_Petar_Plamenov_Kardzhilov_Bulgaria_04.12.2024_Redacted.pdf at §3

[9] Ibid §6-15

[10] Ibid 16-25.

[11] https://unece.org/sites/defaul...

[12] Amigos de la tierra España, Ecologistas En Acción-Coda, Greenpeace España, Sociedad Española De Ornitología (SEO/Birdlife) and WWF/España

[13] Communication https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/Communication_Friends_of_Earth_others_Spain_14.01.2025_Redacted.pdf at §5

[14] Ibid §10-11

[15] https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/C214_Spain_preliminary_determination_admissibility.pdf

[16] Communication at §19 https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2025-05/Communication_Environmental_Rights_Centre_Scotland_United_Kingdom_18.03.2025_Redacted.pdf

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

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.