84 - A cornucopia of Aarhus news

Welcome back, dear reader, to the Aarhus blog- now proudly sponsored by the Aarhus Region Tourist Board. Why not augment your long-planned environmental information pilgrimage with a stop at the world-famous Children’s playground Kloden, built on the terrace of Aarhus’ iconic Dokk1 building? You’d be mad to miss it!

We have many things on the menu this week: a smorgasbord of Aarhus related content (or det store kolde bord, as they say in the much-loved restaurants of Denmark’s vibrant second city).

But first: if you are one of our 11 regular readers, then I must apologise, profusely, for disappointing you yesterday with the absence of your fortnightly Wednesday Aarhus Fix. The fault is mine alone. Our diligent team of editors are all still here, locked in Landmark’s dedicated Aarhus room, working tirelessly away on all things Aarhus Convention. But still- better late than never!

What’s new, then, in Aarhusland?

1. First, a reader submission from Adam Choudhury of Town Legal:

a. His article in the 2026 Cambridge Law Review is well worth your time: The Legal Architecture of Environmental Justice: Incorporating the Aarhus Convention through the Environmental Rights Bill.

b. Adam evaluates the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in domestic law and the effectiveness of its potential incorporation through the proposed Environmental Rights Bill. He concludes that the UK is turning away from environmental responsibility and what is needed is a more purposive construction of the Aarhus Convention in domestic law.

c. You should definitely read the article for yourself, but all I will comment is this: hear, hear! (I have not spoken to my colleague James Maurici about this, but I know his views on this subject very well, and I am sure he would wholeheartedly agree).

2. Second, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) is, as we all know, facing an unprecedented workload:

a. In paragraph 31 (b) of decision VIII/8, adopted at its eighth session (Geneva, 17–20 November 2025), the Meeting of the Parties “invite[d] the Committee to consider ways through which the significant increase in its workload might be addressed”. (“Um, maybe pay us?”)

b. In February this year, the ACCC held a session to take ideas as to how this might be addressed.

c. This issue was discussed further last month. Suggestions for change were largely on the procedural side, such as the potential introduction of summary decisions on admissibility (rather than, for instance, actually paying them).

d. Some interesting facts arose from that meeting too (hidden gems much like Aarhus’ street food market): for instance, 35% of the communications submitted to the Committee by members of the public have been determined to be inadmissible or closed without findings.

e. All in all, while procedural efficiencies are always welcome, it may be that something more substantial is needed if we want faster decisions from the ACCC…

3. Third, it looks like the UK is still trying to wriggle out its finding of non-compliance with the Convention. In April this year the ACCC wrote to the UK asking for a plan of action to fix this. The UK responded last month:

“The Committee will recall that draft Decision VIII/8u was not endorsed by the Meeting of the Parties. For this reason, it would neither be appropriate nor supportive of the long-term integrity of the Convention’s compliance mechanism for the UK to set out a plan of action for implementing the recommendations in draft Decision VIII/8u.”

I’m not sure this line of argument, based on last year’s MoP fudge, will work after the next MoP…

4. Fourth, we await news of the Supreme Court’s take on Foodrise/ Global Feedback, which was heard last month before Lords Sales, Hamblen, Leggatt, Doherty and Lady Simler. If the last few years are anything to go by, we might be waiting a while. (It is also a shame that there was no requirement for a site visit: as the justices missed out on the Aarhus Botanic gardens, a green oasis just to the west of the Old Town Museum, which they say is the jewel of the Jutland peninsula).

5. Finally, and less new, but I do keep getting asked about it: if you missed my UKELA talk on Aarhus case law last year, the video is available here. It’s a little dry, but thankfully it contains plenty of detailed legal content.

That’s it for now, dear reader: stay tuned for more Aarhus-specific legal news!

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

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; ACCC/C/2014/100 and 101; ACCC/C/2017/150. He is currently acting on the Free Trade Agreement Communication ACCC/C/2022/194. 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.

– 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).

– Margherita Cornaglia – Margherita’s public law practice often involves acting in claims raising environmental and climate change related issues. For instance, she acted as junior counsel in the judicial review of the Government’s Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3), pursued with an Aarhus costs cap, advancing novel arguments under Part 4 of the Climate Change Act. She also acted as junior counsel for community claimants in the Launders Lane litigation, challenging Havering Council’s refusal to designate Arnold’s Field as contaminated land; that claim likewise proceeded with Aarhus costs protection to secure effective participation and accountability. Beyond litigation, she has advised solicitors on the Government’s recent consultation concerning access to justice in relation to the Aarhus Convention, drawing on her broader practice representing NGOs and affected communities in environmental and climate cases.

– 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.

– Rebecca Sage – Rebecca is a junior tenant at Landmark Chambers with a growing practice in planning and environmental law. She is regularly instructed on matters engaging the Aarhus Convention, usually through the lens of judicial review. Rebecca has a developing interest in this complex and important area of the law and its implications for access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice.