AARHUS CONVENTION?

COMING SOON IN UK - ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE?
AT LAST!!

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

RULES ON COST OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE:
An ECJ decision (C147/07 16 July 2009) related to Ireland has implications for the UK with respect to the provisions of the AARHUS CONVENTION. Pressure on the UK government to deal with the questions on the cost of environmental litigation will be increased by the infringement proceedings being brought against the Republic of Ireland

FAIR EQUITABLE TIMELY:
NOT PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE:
The so-called third pillar of Aarhus requires parties to allow members of the public and environmental organisations access to the courts to challenge the legality of many environmental decisions and other environmental law breaches.

UK/IRISH COURTS GIVEN DIRECTION how to award costs in Judicial Review proceedings, and generally follow the 'costs in the cause' principle, meaning the losing party MUST PAY the winning side's costs. Court principles allow costs to be fixed at their discretion at the start of cases involving SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST, but the 2008 Sullivan Report concluded that unless more was done the UK risked breaching Aarhus rules. The concerned Court Of Appeal again could not give a definitive ruling because of Lord Justice Jackson's ongoing fundamental review of civil costs.

EIA and IPPC:
The 1985 Directives on Environmental Assessment and 1996 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control were amended to include provisions on access to justice which reflect the Aarhus Convention, thus the obligation of providing independent JR procedures that are NOT PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE has now entered the language of substantive European Commission Law.

Irish and UK Law concerning cost and judicial discretion are similar, but are not proper transposition, which require a more definitive and binding form,
such as a court procedural role. The Commission succeeded on costs and access to justice, and although the Irish Judges had 'DISCRETION' not to awards costs against an unsuccessful party, this was not sufficient to implement the directive's requirements. 'Mere practise which cannot by definition be certain' could not be regarded as valid implementation of the obligations under the two directives.

UK GOVERNMENT'S COLD SHOULDER The UK government has an unrealistic narrow view, arguing that Aarhus costs refer only to minimal £130 fees payable in JR rather than to the HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS costs payable to the other party.
This year the Sullivan Review and Court of appeal rejected the government's unnecessarily narrow interpretation, and the advocate general's opinion was clear that the ban on prohibitively expensive costs extended to all legal costs incurred by the parties involved, and to all 'costs arising from participation' in the court procedures.

EU INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST UK:
concerning the Environmental Assessment directive and the issue of access to justice costs. No formal government response to May 2008 Sullivan Report, and the JACKSON REVIEW, (final due Xmas), noted the challenge of complying with Aarhus, and suggested possible mechanisms of reform.

WILL COMMISSION TOLERATE UK INTRANSIGENCE?
Its patience with UK prevarifications may be stretched to the limit and due to the Irish case the commission may feel confident to move on to the reasoned opinion stage of proceedings, almost inevitably leading to action before the ECJ unless the government concedes.

PAY BACK TIME?!
Is it too late for Mrs P?

DEPUTY JUDGE DAVID ELVIN QC ON HUMAN RIGHTS?

NOT APPLICABLE TO RUGBY RESIDENTS! NOR TO MRS P!
"TRANNIE RAPIST WINS MOVE TO FEMALE JAIL"
..screams the Sun, as deputy judge David Elvin QC decides that a transgender murderer and rapist should have her/his human rights protected, regardless of any public costs involved, so that he/she can wear skirts and make up in prison, and feel better about life. Great isn't it!

HUMAN RIGHTS?
DUAL STANDARDS: And how much does David Elvin care about the human rights of Rugby residents, and our right to a good built environment, amenity, decent air quality and health? And to the human rights enshrined in the AARHUS CONVENTION, and the right to ACCESS TO JUSTICE for all EU citizens, without its being "prohibitively expensive"? Not a jot!


DAVID ELVIN , acting under instruction, was the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY'S barrister who "persuaded" the five Law Lords that Rugby residents were making too much fuss when they asked for a ruling against the Agency, for its part in protecting and permitting the unlawfully built and operated RUGBY CEMENT CO-INCINERATOR. Built and operated by STEALTH and COMPLICITY, by the consortium of Rugby Cement/RMC/Cemex, Warwickshire County Council, Rugby Borough Council, and worst of all by the Environment Agency - all without any public consultation, without any mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment, and by deception, and by concealment of the environmental and health impacts. Secret meetings, secret documents and "ignore, misinform, and mislead" was how the "big four" treated everyone, including even our Member of Parliament. The human rights of the thousands of vulnerable receptors who live in the areas of multiple deprivation and poor air quality round the Cemex co-incinerator count for nothing.

PUBLIC INTEREST NOT SERVED
According to Mr Elvin NO public interest is served by any person acting altruistically to prevent 60,000 residents from being increasingly polluted by the increased quantity of, and increased toxicity of, the thousands of tonnes a day of particle laden acid gas poured out in our SMOKELESS ZONE. It seems that Rugby residents not only do not mind being polluted - but ask for more toxic pollution! Apparently, says Mr Elvin, no-one in Rugby, or elsewhere, except MRS P, has any concerns about the ongoing emissions at the Cemex co-incinerator, and so she must pay £100,000 for speaking up, as it is her own private vendetta, and of NO PUBLIC INTEREST! Human Rights? BLAH!

RUGBY COUNCIL SAYS :

MAKE MORE WASTE!!
Well not exactly - but they do say that the good people of Rugby are reducing, recycling and reusing so that their black bin waste is only about 15,000 tonnes a year, which would only supply about a week's Refuse Derived Fuel for the Cemex co-incinerator. So we need another 50 small market towns to send us their waste - bring it on, from all corners of the world.

ADVERTISEMENT

SAVE US £30,000 A DAY!
500,000 T WASTE REQUIRED FOR THRIFTY CO-INCINERATOR

500,000 tonnes Waste wanted in Rugby for the processing and manufacture of Refuse Derived Fuel to be co-incinerated in the area of multiple deprivation and poor air quality in Rugby's western smokeless zone. Distance, BPEO, Proximity Principal, Pollution, and Human rights not an issue! Help the cement industry to save 500 tonnes coal - about £30,000 a day!! Commission paid!