We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
12 April 2021
In December 2020 the Higher Administrative Court issued an interesting ruling regarding the party status of environmental organisations (EOs).(1) Until now, the scope of EOs' participation rights in Austrian nature conservation proceedings was unclear. The court's ruling clarifies that EOs' party status is to be interpreted broadly.
The Aarhus Convention(2) provides for public participation in environmental proceedings and access to justice in order to review environmental procedures. In Austria, the right to participate in proceedings and to appeal is in principle available only to those who have party status, which is determined by national law. A strict distinction must be made between participating and legal parties. 'Participating' parties have limited procedural rights, such as participation in a hearing. In contrast, 'legal' parties have the right to file an application and to appeal. Therefore, the extent to which EOs are entitled to participate in proceedings is based on the definition of party status in each national regulation.
Previously, the prevailing view was that (under the Aarhus Convention) EOs were only participants in procedures. However, this view was ultimately rejected by the European Court of Justice and the scope of EOs' permitted actions was expanded.
In light of the above, the Environmental Impact Assessment Act provides far-reaching rights for EOs. They can participate in procedures (ie, inspect files, submit statements and file complaints against permits) in order to ensure compliance with environmental protection regulations.
However, under nature conservation law, EOs' rights were traditionally limited. Originally, procedures under the nine provincial(3) nature conservation laws were classic single-party procedures. This means that, in principle, only the applicant was a party. Within the framework of the Aarhus Convention, this restriction led to several infringement proceedings by the European Commission. Therefore, EOs were gradually granted access to and participation rights in proceedings (first through the judiciary and later through legislation) in the various nature conservation laws.
However, EOs' right to appeal has been limited to the provisions that derive directly from EU law (eg, the EU Habitats and Birds Directives). It has been ruled that for purely national environmental regulations and the procedures carried out based on these (eg, nature conservation procedures which make no reference to an EU environmental regulation), EOs have no party status. This is because the Aarhus Convention is not directly applicable in national law and therefore no subjective rights can be deduced from the convention in purely national law.(4)
The case in question concerned the approval under nature conservation law for the redesign of the riverbanks in a park in Graz, Styria. Two EOs filed complaints against the permit granted by the authority, arguing that the project would endanger animals protected under the EU Habitats Directive.(5)
The Styrian administrative court rejected the appeals on the grounds that the permit had been issued according to national provisions on the protection of water bodies and their banks, which do not directly serve the implementation of EU law. Therefore, the court held that the EOs could not derive party status from the law and thus were not entitled to file a complaint.
On the EOs' appeal, the Higher Administrative Court found as follows:
Even though the permit was not directly based on EU law, the EOs were entitled to have the permit and the compliance with EU law reviewed by the administrative courts.
Although the Higher Administrative Court did not depart from the principle that EOs have party status or the right of judicial review (if there are no significant effects on the environment) only when EU law is involved, the court has significantly broadened EOs' participation rights.
The protection of flora and fauna in compliance with the EU Habitats and Birds Directives will almost always play a role in nature conservation procedures in all nine Austrian provinces. This creates an inevitable link to EU law and would bestow on EOs the right to have compliance with environmental law reviewed in almost every case.
For companies which plan on implementing projects, this could create significant legal uncertainty. Following the legal opinion of the court, extensive circumstances must be considered in procedures that are initially based only on national regulations.
This interpretation means that there is a possible deviation from the classic one-party procedure in future Austrian nature conservation proceedings, even for projects that:
For more information on this topic please contact Christoph Jirak or Sarah Wolf at Schoenherr by telephone (+43 1 534 37 0) or email (email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org). The Schoenherr website can be accessed at www.schoenherr.eu.
(2) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (signed in Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998). Ratified in Austria through BGBl III 2005/88.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.