ELP (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY)

-The polluter pays pple, does not work, because legal processes donot work well to redress environ victims: How long and indirect can the chain of consequences be? Were the emissions caused by the electricity-generating company, or by whoever sold the polluting fuel, or financed the power station, or used the electricity – or by all of these?….An American attempt to pursue the legal route – the ‘Superfund’ – only achieved that the funds intended to benefit victims of pollution have ended up in the hands of lawyers, and have increased business uncertainty by holding individuals and companies liable for events long in the past.

-Article 101 and 102 TFEU<> EU treaties: sustainability “must” be taken into account (in CLP)…..Unfortunately, there is nothing equivalent in UK law…but there is: the UK CC Act; the Paris Agreement, and hr law

-any organisation bidding for a contract of over £5 million per annum, must publish a compliant Carbon Reduction Plan (CRP) describing how intends to achieve net zero [greenhouse gas emissions] by 2050 + crp must comply with the GHG Protocol’s Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. <> cocoo will challenge the credibility of firms’ crps, which fail to comply with the GHC protocol standard, thus such firms cannot bid for public tenders..and if they have already won a tender, is void….this will also affect such firms’ green credentials [ are they also greenwashing?]

a small firm won the ‘public’ tender to manage the ENZC [everything net zero multibillion contract]….how come?…..why was only 1 tender received??

<> CROWDJUSTICE JR PAP, AND WON £10K IN PAP COSTS, BY JUST ARGUING THAT THE SMALL FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED THE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

cocoo claims:

– clp was violated, during the permitted collaborations/agreements between rivals.

-enzc is strategically flawed.

-enzc management was unlawfully tendered and awarded

– the (mediator contract), …was unlawful awarded

-the awarded firm is failing to properly manage the enzc

-the beneficiaries of the enzct are failing their duties to implement it properly

COCOO WILL CHALLENGE THE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES OF THE 9 AMAZON COUNTRIES, AND WILL ASK FOR more funding (eu etc), for:

- better monitoring of forest to prevent illigal fires.
- indigenous health and safety: …eg: growing violence, impunity and organised crime affecting environmental and human rights defenders and indigenous peoples and others…eg: covid virus is doubly threatening. Environmental protections and health law enforcement have been reduced
- strengthening the rule of law
  - , eg: laws that allow contracts oil firms, will be made illegal by cocoo;
  - eg: cpcl is infringed as such laws distort competition, as alternative energy companies are not getting those big contracts that oil firms are getting
  - • support to civil society organisations working to protect the environment of the Amazon and human and indigenous peoples’ rights;
  - • EU delegations in the region systematically take up cases of environmental defenders facing threats of violence with the countries concerned;
  - • the establishment of a specific Amazon programme to promote the rule of law in the region as part of the EU – Latin America and Caribbean relations agreement of May 2019 to promote, inter alia,democracy, the rule of law and human rights, including through technical assistance to supportministries charged with environmental protection and justice in the Amazon;
  - • collaboration with member states of the Amazonian Cooperation Treaty Organization and indigenous peoples and environmental defenders to develop initiatives to combat organised crime, and illegal land grabs and deforestation in the Amazon.

SO THAT ALL AMAZON EVILS END SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, COCOO IS LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO EXERCISE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES (UNDER BOTH COCOO’S CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTIONS OF ENBB’S [EU/nations/banks/businesses operating in eu], TO PRESS ENBBs TO CHALLENGE the 9 Amazon Nations (AN):

how? : their SR = soverign right [= right to determine their own policy (development) priorities]… IS SUBJECT TO A BALANCING EXERCISE (right to ec.dev (ew) <> right to environment).

ENBB+AN HAVE A STATUTORY DUTY TO FUND COCOO TO PROTECT r.to envir.

1- silogism:

true: the principal driver of all amazon evils, are the extractive industries : mining and oil extraction, and large-scale agriculture (eg mcdonnalds) and logging and associated infrastructure projects
‘s carbon sink capacity is predicted to reach zero by 2035. “This decrease is decades ahead of what even the most pessimistic climate models predicted…SO BY 2035, a collapse in amazon’s capacity to absorb CO2 means it will subsequently become a contributor to greenhouse gases with impacts on livelihoods locally, regionally and worldwide
true: ENBBs [EU/nations/banks/businesses operating in eu], are themselves the amazonian extractive industries, or at least their collaborators giving them funding, housing them etc
conclusion 1: AN SR is subject to the [BALANCING EXERCISE]: ew<>elp
conclusion 2: contribute to amazon deforestation and human rights violations
conclusion 3: ENBB have a duty to challenge their business partner, the AN SR [exclusively on this particular issue], so that all amazon evils end.

2-CLP + ELP+ HRL ARE VIOLATED

3-AN+ENBB’S duty to further strengthen their measures on business and dd, by:

• implementating the EU-Mercosur Treaty, to respect the rights of indigenous peoples including
the right to be consulted and to obtain their free and informed consent prior to any development
activity affecting their lands, territories and resources;

• an effective, affordable, and culturally accessible grievance mechanism, where
indigenous peoples can address European corporate violations of their rights

• support for mandatory dd legislation, so that companies based, registered or having a significant market or administrative presence in the EU, are held to account for violations of indigenous peoples´ rights in the Pan Amazon region…..such dd should also be required of investors;

• support for the maintenance of the Soy Moratorium and its extension to the Amazon savannah
(‘Cerrado’) and forest certification schemes, to ensure that products entering the
EU market are not sourced from the Amazon

• an EU-initiated multi-stakeholder dialogue on indigenous peoples´ rights and business enterprises operating in the Amazon region focused on regulation in accordance with the Un Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other relevant international standards,

4- AN+ENBB’S duty to implement POLICY changes in:

enbb’s trade, finance and development activities and policies…EG:ANSR policies are potentially life-threatening to the indies
to establish a legal framework that prohibits actions that undermine the Paris Climate Agreement PCA,
in cpcl

5- AN+ ENBB’S DUTY TO alert the ICC to a possible crime against humanity affecting the integrity of the Amazon biome, causing the illegal dispossession of indigenous peoples’ lands and threatening the lives of indigenous
.
6- AN+ENBB DUTY TO build on their initiatives for a sustainable forest programme, give political
and financial backing to the indigenous peoples as forest guardians

7- ENBB+AN, DUTY TO PRIORISISE cases that cause environmental destruction. THE ICC HAS ALREADY PRIORITISED THEM: ‘The ICC must prioritise prosecuting Rome Statute envir crimes .’.=ICC PROSECUTOR Policy paper on case selection and prioritisation’

BANKTRACK

COCOO ADVISES BANKS THAT THEIR LOANS (to envir destroying corps/govs) WILL NOT BE REPAID, BECAUSE COCOO WILL MAKE SURE THEY ARE REGARDED AS ODS, or as illegal loans

BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse, ING to exclude exports of Ecuadorian Amazon oil from trading activities…these Commitments come in response to Amazon Watch, Stand.earth report that exposed how European banks provide USD 10 billion in oil trade financing , in the Amazon

Rabobank told Reuters “it had stopped financing Ecuadorian crude cargoes earlier ,” and communicated to Stand.earth and Amazon Watch the financing “violated our existing policies that prohibit activities in World Heritage Sites or high conservation value areas.” UBS: “it already has declined some crude oil transactions from the region due to concerns about indigenous land rights.” However, UBS has yet to make any firm commitments <> COCOO V UBS

Natixis bank was the only bank, among the top 6, to keep making trades in Amazon oil after the release of the report <> cocoo v natixis

<> COCOO OFFERS FSA TO INDIGENOUS, TO GET LOCUS, TO CLAIM THAT EU BANKS FAILED THEIR FIDUCIARY AND WPI DUTIES IN ENTERING CERTAIN FUNDING CONTRACTS [TO OIL ON AMAZON] , AND THEREFORE THESE DEBTSLOAN CONTRACTS ARE VOID. ….TYPES OF VOIDING GROUNDS:

A. OIL TRADE, ETC ….

B. ALSO THESE LOANS CAN BE DEFAULTED, IF BECOME OD, ODIOUS DEBT, …..[COUNTRIES CHANGING REGIME ON PURPOSE, TO SCAM BANKSMONEYS BY NOT REPAYING THEIR DEBTS]…THE WEST DESTROYED AFRICAMAZON, BUT , FROM THE FOR OF FUTURE WESTERN GENERATIONS, THIS DEBT IS AN OD OWED TO AMAZONAFRICA…SO WE DONT OWE THEM>??

C. ANTICOMPS BY BANKS/GOV FUNDING OIL/FIRMS [GENERATE NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES], OVER ECOSOLUTION FIRMS, DISTORTS COMPETITION IN THE ENERGY MARKET ETC

D. REPUTATIONAL RISK

Credit Suisse noted that its oil and gas policy restricts financing for projects that could threaten conservation or indigenous rights, but also said that these policies did not apply to TFIS* <> cocoo v credit suisse and bnp paribas

*trade finance innovation services: TFIS- enables a global trade in oil, natural gas and coa – is coming under greater scrutiny….BECAUSE TFIS ARE EXCEPTIONS (LOOPHOLES) FROM WPI POLICIES <> COCOO FIND CASES RESEARCHING TFI

**not to confuse with: Task Force Inventories (TFI) : The TFI develops and refines an internationally-agreed methodology and software for the calculation and reporting of national GHG emissions and removals and encourages the use of this methodology by countries participating in the IPCC [ipcc.ch ] =The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change], and by signatories of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Most of the trade in Amazon oil passes through banks or their subsidiaries in Switzerland

In Ecuador, which depends on oil exports pumped mostly by soe Petroamazonas for a third of its public sector revenues, indigenous groups say that concessions have often been awarded without their consent…An Ecuadorian court ruled last year that the Waorani people had not been properly consulted and banned drilling on half a million acres of their territory….plans to drill hundreds of additional oil wells in Ecuador’s Yasuni National Park, which sits atop a major concession, have caused alarm. Home to jaguars, howler monkeys, pink dolphins, macaws and toucans, the UNESCO World Heritage Site is one of the most species-rich habitats on the planet

the ecocide/ethnocide crime:

– ‘‘ecocide’’ requires serious crimes against persons committed by environmental means…… icc should have a ‘crime against nature’ but it does not… and also should have criminal liability of firms for international crimes, but it does not…. why not? because not all countries recognise criminal liability for corporations…to make corps crim.liable, art 25 of the ICC Statute should be amended…currently, gives liability only over humans [but not against corps…however, countries are liable for failing to ensure that their firms can be held liable for harm to nature]

icc 2016 OTP Policy Paper, encourage the (intl. criminal law) prosecution of firms’ ceos <> cocoo v ceos of corps/banks/govs, on the ground of ‘‘aiding and abetting’’

<> cocoo: icc is failing its duty to give legal personality to nature, so that a crime v nature can exist; icc is also failing its duty to amend art 25 icc, so that corps can be liable for harming nature.

<> cocoo to represent victims (eg. indies) before the ICC prosecutor …but no all hr abuses [eg against indigenous peoples] are international crimes…if so,cannot be brought before the icc….the difficulties in finding civil or criminal liability to individual offenders, is a very strong argument for a change in law or policies, to more easily assign State liability for environmental damage in the civil sphere, to complement ndividual criminal liability <> cocoo will challenge govs’ decisions not to change law/policies so that they can be more easily civilly liable for environm damage

2 ecocide types:

pe (peacetime ecocide): un Environment Programme’s (UNEP): pe egs:wildlife crime; wildlife trafficking; illegal charcoal and illegal gold mining;rare highly valuable wood like rosewood; caustic soda and petroleum residues dumped

ce (conflict ecocide): icc statute: Article 8 (2)(b)(iv) and Article 8 (2) (b) (xvi): only apply where envirdamage occurs in international conflict……During peacetime or domestic conflict, illegal natural resources exploitation/land grabbing/envir damage , can be prosecuted [before icc] ,under article 5 of the Rome Statute, only if they occur in the context of genocide/crimes against humanity…because genocide and crimes against humanity do not need to occur in the context of an armed conflict.

 land grabbing disputes in Cambodia had been reported by the UN Special Rapporteur on Cambodia <> cocoo will look at un
 special rapporteur reports...as a source for new cases

defining international environmental crimes in the context of CAH(crimes against humanity), has more chances to win, than under the context of genocide ….OTP cannot prosecute cah based on recklessness, because recklessness is not within the jurisdiction of the court.’’ …also, genocide, or CAH, require a specific result (e.g. ‘‘killing members of the group’’),but do not require harm to environment or human health

Principles on protection of the environment in relation to war and postwar:

- Principle 10 :States must ensure that their firms, exercise dd wrt the protection of the
 environment, including wrt human health

-Principle 11: States must ensure that their firms can be held liable for harm caused to
 the environment, including wrt human health

<> cocoo v SNs, for failing their duty to ensure [eg via laws/regs + enforcement]

2011.DEFENSA DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE  EN EL OCA [ORDEN CONTENCIOSO-ADMINISTRATIVO]...

de acuerdo con el Convenio de Aarhus, el Derecho comunitario y el español

ma: medio ambiente

DOCA (decisión/omisión/conducta/accion)

ts: tribunal supremo.

ce: constitución española.

ca:convenio de aaruhs

tjue: tribunal de justicia de la unión europea

cedH: convenio europeo para la Protección de los derechos Humanos.
tedH: tribunal europeo de derechos Humanos.
loPj: ley orgánica del Poder judicial.
lrjca: ley de régimen jurídico de las administraciones Públicas y del Procedimiento administrativo común
COE : El Consejo de Estado, fundado en 1526 por Carlos V, es el supremo órgano consultivo del Gobierno
de España.El Consejo sitúa en el centro de sus preocupaciones la lealtad constitucional 
y la defensa del Estado social y democrático de Derecho

art. 45 ce : «Todos tienen el derecho a disfrutar de un m adecuado para el desarrollo de la
persona, así como el deber de conservarlo»....excepcion en el art. 53.3 de la ce:
si la actividad que dana el ma, esta protegida por ley.
en mi opinión, interpretar el art. 24.1 de la ce para restringir aun mas la legitimación
procesal (locus standi), es inconstitucional.
la tutela judicial del ma es insignificante, erc (en relación con) la
tutela administrativa a que obliga la constitución

la normativa EU [a differencia de la CA]:

1/ Los estados pueden decidir la fase en la que pueden impugnar DOCAS
2/ los recursos no se exigen que sean «suficientes y efectivos»
3/ no se exigen mecanismos de asistencia apropiados,encaminados a eliminar o reducir 
los obstáculos financieros o de otro tipo , al acceso a la justicia» 

Por tanto, la ley 27/2006 no cumple con los requisitos materiales
exigidos en los párrafos 4 y 5 del artículo 9 del CA


EL CONVENIO DE AARHUS (CA)

el convenio sobre el acceso a la información, la Participación del Público en
la toma de decisiones, y el acceso a la justicia en materia de Medio ambiente,
elaborado en aarhus (dinamarca), entró en vigor en espana en 2005.

ca define ma como un derecho humano 

el artículo 9 ca, contiene tres mecanismos de tutela judicial

1/ el acceso a la información
2/ la participación del público en la toma de decisiones
3/ el acceso a la justicia en materia de ma

ca:  legitimacion activa (locus standi):

«el público» se encuentra legitimado para iniciar un procedimiento
de cumplimiento del ca. art. 2.4 ca
''publico'' =«una o varias personas físicas o jurídicas y,
con arreglo a la legislación o la costumbre del país,
asociaciones, organizaciones o grupos».

dar locus standi al publico, es un elemento característico del ca,
ya que la gran mayoría de instrumentos internacionales de derecho ambiental únicamente permiten
la participación de los estados miembros u organismos internacionales.

9.3 ca: el publico puede exigir('RECURRIR'),ante los tribunales penales, civiles o administrativos:

por:

decisiones (eg aprobacion de una norma o ley) o conductas u omisiones, ilegales [ por incumplimiento
de cualquier norma de: ma nacional/ acceso a informacion / participacion del publico en decisiones.

contra:

a. las autoridades públicas
b. privados(corporaciones/individuos)....eg: admin.decide aprovar, projecto privado
que dana el ma.

tjeu: el solo hecho de que una decision/conducta/omision, priv/pub, pueda tener algún tipo de relación
con el ma, no implica que pueda aplicarse el 9.3, sino que ma, ha de ser la finalidad y
contenido de tal decision/conducta.

la determinación de los requisitos de locus stadi del público, se deja al derecho nacional.
pero el locus no puede reservarse a una determinada nacionalidad [eg solo los espanoles]
eg. la onG belga Bond Beter Leefmileu Vlaandereb VZW (BBl) en 2005, alego el incumplimiento
de los artículos 2.5, 3.1 y 9, párrafos 1 a 4 del ca...solicitando la anulación de dos normas de
planeamiento en las que se aprobaba un vertedero y una licencia de urbanización....pero....
las demandas fueron inadmitidas por falta de legitimación de dichas organizaciones.

porque?:

el coe [consejo de estado] exigió a las ngos(ongs) los mismos requisitos de legitimación
exigidos a las personas naturales:

i) un criterio social:
el objetivo estatutario de la organización no puede ser tan amplio que se confunde con el interés general

ii) un criterio geográfico:
las actividades de la organización no pueden cubren un área amplia,salvo que tenga un objetivo social
específicamente definido....si el objetivo de la organización se extiende a un amplio territorio,
solo tiene locus, si el acto (ilegal) amdministrativo, afecta a todo o una gran parte del territorio
previsto en los estatutos de la organización.

Dif:
1/ca 9.2: en acciones/omisiones/conductas [ilegales por infringir ma] que requieren la participación
pública [eg el plan de urbanizacion...], para tener locus, hay que demostrar
un interés suficiente o invocar la lesión de un derecho

2/ca 9.3: en acciones/omisiones/conductas [ilegales por infringir ma] que NO requieren la participación
publica [eg: el plan por el que se aprobó el vertedero] para tener locus, hay que cumplir
los requisitos del derecho nacional.

ca: 'locus debe seguir el criterio, si lo hay, establecido en la ley nacional'....
por tanto, la regla general es dar locus, salvo que la ley nacional lo niege.

al «fallar en proporcionar unos recursos efectivos respecto al planeamiento urbanístico» ,
el COE incumplio también el artículo 9.4

más de los legales, para no restringir el acceso a la tutela judicial del derecho
ambiental de tal manera que impida a todas, o a la mayoría, de organizaciones
ambientales recurrir los actos u omisiones que contravengan el derecho nacional en
materia ambiental o que puedan privar de la reparación efectiva a
los miembros del público. esto ocurriría

en casos, como éste, en el que a las onGs se les exigiere los mismos requisitos de legitimación que
a las personas físicas, se traduce en que las ongs nunca tienen legitimacion.

CA : legitimacion pasiva

acciones administrativas y judiciales contra acciones/omisiones de las autoridades públicas
o de particulares (eg corps)...si es contra acc/omis de particulares, solo se puede solicitar la 
declaracion de nulidad de la actuación de la administración + solicitar que el estado ejercite
 su poder punitivo y sancionador contra tales particulares (corps).....osea, los ciudadanos no tienen
 derecho a castigar, directamente, a otros, por medio de un procedimiento
 administrativo sancionador, ya que el ejercicio de esta potestad queda reservado a la administración

EL DERECHO COMUNITARIO

tjue de 2011(asunto c-240/09): el derecho comunitario debe interpretarse de acuerdo con el ca...
pero ca no forma parte del dcho.com

caso:
una ong eslovaca solicitó constituirse como «parte» de un
procedimiento administrativo sobre la concesión de excepciones al régimen
de protección de especies, el acceso a los espacios naturales protegidos y a
la utilización de productos químicos en tales espacios. 
dicha solicitud fue rechazada, ante lo cual se presentó recurso administrativo y, posteriormente,
recurso contencioso-administrativo, argumentando la aplicación directa del
art. 9.3 ca. 

la defensa al derecho al ma, es protegido a través del art. 8 del cepdh (convenio europeo
para la Protección de los derechos Humanos)<> ca dice que ma es un dcho humano. 

para entablar recursos de incumplimiento ante el tjue, únicamente están legitimados 
los estados miembros. en consecuencia, los particulares tienen que acudir
a vías indirectas :

A/comunicando a la comision su incumplimiento, para que ésta inicie un procedimiento de infracción,
que puede terminar con la interposición de un recurso de incumplimiento

B/solicitando a los tribunales domésticos una cuestión prejudicial, cuando se plantee una cuestión 
sobre la interpretación o la validez de una norma comunitaria, en un litigio nacional

estas vías indirectas [de los particulares] de legitimacion [para acceso a la justicia comunitaria]
,infringen el ca...pues ca propone vias directas.


-la aplicación del derecho ma supone una desventaja competitiva??  ca <> cpcl ??

 ley 27/ 2006

la ley 27/ 2006, por la que se adecua españa al ca....y del principio 10 de la declaración de Río:
''para la protección del ambiente se tendrá que proporcionar un acceso efectivo a los
 procedimientos judiciales y administrativos y, dentro de
éstos, al resarcimiento de daños y a los recursos pertinentes»

la ley 27/2006 :exige disponer de instrumentos adecuados, reales y efectivos para que 
la participación pública ante los tribunales y remedios adecuados(eg.injunctions) 

artículo 20: legitimación solo por derecho e interés legitimo, individual o colectivo;

artículos 22 y 23 :  derecho a acción legal, para la aplicación de la legislación ma...
no requiere que el claimant tengo un interes directo/legitimo en la coa.

ce (art. 9.2)+ (art. 7.3 ley orgánica del Poder judicial):grupos/ongs pueden ser partes (contenciosas)
si tienen personalidad jca. 

artículo 24.1 ce: la legitimación activa, como requisito procesal, debe: 
1/estar prevista en una norma  jurídica; 
2/justificarse por una finalidad constitucional razonable y proporcionada; 
3/interpretarse en el sentido más favorable a la efectividad de los derechos fundamentales

las onGs ambientalistas pueden acreditar con más facilidad [que un grupo de ciudadanos sin personalidad
juridica], un interés legitimo , solo poniendo es la constitucion de la ong que el ma, es un
interes legitimo].... y esta legitimación no puede resultar ignorada por la ley 27/2006, 
ya que sería contrario a la legitimación por intereses legítimos colectivos reconocida a las onGs
 en el ordenamiento español : el artículo 19.h) ljca otorga legitimación a cualquier ciudadano 
en ejercicio de acción popular...  todos los ciudadanos estan legitimados para 
actuar en defensa de
la legalidad

DIF:

A/ el artículo 19.1.b) lrjca, que prácticamente reproduce el artículo 7.3 loPj,
otorga legitimación a las corporaciones, asociaciones, sindicatos y grupos
«que resulten afectados o habilitados legalmente» para la defensa de los derechos e intereses legítimos
colectivos[sus finalidades estatutarias]eg.asociaciones de protección
del medio ambiente, tienen locus....cocoo tiene locus

B/acciones popular: sólo pueden ser presentadas por las entidades habilitadas legalmente 
para la defensa de intereses legítimos colectivos.....cocoo no puede presentar una accion popular.


LA TUTELA JUDICIAL DEL ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN

art. 9.1 ca: «toda persona que estime que la solicitud de informaciones que ha presentado en 
aplicación del art. 4 ha sido ignorada, rechazada abusivamente, en todo o en parte, 
o insuficientemente tenida en cuenta,puede presentar un recurso ante un órgano judicial o
ante otro órgano independiente e imparcial establecido por la ley». vemos,
pues, que no se especifica los requisitos de legitimación para plantear dicho recurso

LA TUTELA JUDICIAL DEL DERECHO A LA PARTICIPACION

ca artículo 6: 
DOCAS publicas, que emergen de ciertas actividades, requieren la participación del público....si no,
se puede impugnar su legalidad (del contenido y/o la forma/procedimiento)

requisitos de legitimacion activa: 

i) publico interesado....el art. 2.5 ca incluye dentro del «público interesado» a las organizaciones
asociaciones o grupos constituidas exclusivamente para proteger los derechos afectados
eg. cuya constitucion dice «que trabajan a favor del medio ambiente». 
+
ii) tengan un interés para actuar (eg victims)....la legitimidad aqui, no se determina exclusivamente
 de acuerdo con las finalidades constit. de la ong.
por tanto, habrá que tener en cuenta el convenio sobre el reconocimiento de la personalidad
jurídica de las onGs, adoptado en el contexto del consejo de europa en 1986
o 
iii) invoquen un atentado contra un derecho (art. 9.2 ca).


case: 

la onG húngara Clean Air Action Group, mediante comunicación [ante el comite de cumplimiento
del CA], en 2004, alegando la violación de los artículos 6 y 9.2 y 4 del CA....en base a que
una ley hungara sobre interés público y desarrollo de la red ferroviaria de alta velocidad 
, infringia CA.... dicha ley, según la comunicante (ong),  
establecía la necesidad de demostrar un interés «considerable» del demandante,para tener locus.

el comité [de CA], consideró que la ley húngara no
contiene unos estándares inferiores a los exigidos por el ca...pero el comité recomendó :

1/que los paises firmantes deben abstenerse de 
, como en este caso, reducir los derechos que da el ca [acceso a la 
información, la participación pública y proteccion ambiental], incluso cuando no
conlleven la violación del convenio

2/ que las Partes que los hayan restringido, han de mantener esas restriciones
 bajo revisión constante, para evitar incumplimientos.

case:

tres onGs armenias enviaron una comunicación al comité de cumplimiento del CA, en la que
 alegaban la violación de los artículos 4, 6, 7,8 y 9.2 del convenio.

ongs: las decisiones publicas sobre cambio de uso de suelo, y zonificación del suelo,
 fueron adoptadas mediante decretos,
 por lo cual no se tuvo en cuenta la opinión del público y, de acuerdo con la legislación armenia, 
éstos no fueron publicados. 

ongs: estas son decisiones que, de acuerdo con la ley armenia,requieren evaluación 
de impacto ambiental. las ongs enviaron solicitudes de información a lasautoridades públicas
,sin recibir  respuesta satisfactoria;
los comunicantes demandaron la nulidad de tales decretos por violar el CA y la ley armenia.

esta demanda fue inadmitida por falta de jurisdicción del tribunal,
 ya que, de acuerdo con la constitución armenia, dichos
decretos sólo podían ser anulados por el tribunal constitucional armenio, y, según las
leyes internas, para ello únicamente se encuentran legitimados el Gobierno,
el Presidente y la asamblea nacional

CASE:  STATE AID .  NGO V EU

EC : Brussels, 17.5.2023

COM(2023) 307 final

on the findings adopted by the ACCC [Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee] in case ACCC/C/2015/128 as regards state aid:

The European Green Deal is a highly ambitious political priority, involving transformative changes across European economies, by enhancing the competitiveness of Europe’s net-zero industry

Csos play a role in the transition, by ensuring that the institutions of the EU uphold EU environmental law

The EU and its Member States are parties to the AC

The AR (Aarhus Regulation) was revised in 2021 to provide broader opportunities for NGOs and other members of the public to challenge administrative environlaw-breaching DOCAS of EU institutions/bodies

The revised Aarhus Regulation provides a number of exceptions, including an exception for State aid decisions.

The green transition needs State aid…but there is a need for minimising the negative effects of this State aid on clcp

In 2015, the ‘ACCC’ received a complaint from an environmental ngo, about a EC decision on State aid granted to support the development of a new nuclear power plant in a Member State (case ACCC/C/2015/128).

ACCC found that EU had failed to put in place a mechanism for the public to be able to challenge EC decisions on State aid (under ar.108.2 tfeu):

By failing to provide access to administrative or judicial procedures for members of the public to challenge decisions on State aid measures taken by the EC under Article 108(2) TFEU, in breach of EU law relating to the environment, the EU fails to comply with Article 9(3) of the AC + the EU also fails to provide an adequate and effective remedy regarding such decisions as required by Article 9(4) of the Convention

Thus, EC promised that, by the end of 2023, it would implement measures to address the issue

The AC has 46 Parties, including the European Union. It is the leading UN Convention on environmental democracy, transparency, public participation, and access to justice in environmental matters

in EU, the public/csos, may acces justice in environmental matters, both via the (CJEU) and the national courts

it is EC’s duty to proactively monitor compliance with EU environmental laws…but, individuals and NGOs can submit complaints to the EC…but, where the indivs/ngos/csos believe that the EC’s dopa itself has breached EU environmental laws, the AR allows environmental NGOs (and also, as of 29 April 2023, other defined ‘members of the public’) a right to request an internal review. The reply of the EU institution or body can be challenged before the CJEU

However, the AR exempts certain EU dopas, from the internal review mechanism. Exempted eu dopas:

(i) under Articles 101, 102, 106, and 107 of the Treaty (competition rules);

(ii) in infringement proceedings;

(iii) in Ombudsman proceedings;

(iv) in OLAF proceedings

EU State aid control (SAC)

SAC aims to limit distortions of clcp, arising from Member States DOPAS on SA..(eg spain giving a selective advantages to certain corp)

eu sac is in the TFEU, secondary legislation and case-law

SA may help the environment (e.g., SA for renewable energy)

Member States decide which undertakings should receive State aid , as a matter of national policy (within the limitations of the legal framework, including EU environmental law)

ec has exclusive competence [subject to review by the Ecj] , in SA matters, to assess the compatibility of Member States’ measures with the internal market, to prevent clcp distortion.

<> COCOO COMPLAINS TO ACCC

GROUNDS:

A MEMBERSTATE HAS PROPOSED (TO EC) A SA TO A CERTAIN CORP, IN BREACH OF SAC, AS IT GIVES SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE TO THIS CORP, THUS DISTORTING CLCP, AND HARMING THE ENVIRONM. ….thus:

+ the state’s dopa (to choose to give SA to a certain corp), is illegal, becos is in breach of envir.laws, and clcp….

+ the eu dopa to authorise such SA, is illegal = ec’s dopa granting compatibility between state and internal market, is illegal, because the country’s proposed SA, promotes clcp distortion, and/or eu environm law, and/or other eu law.

EC possible SA dopas:

(i) decision that a measure does not constitute SA

(ii) decision not to raise objections

(iii) decisions to initiate the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 108 (2) TFEU

(iv) decisions closing the formal investigation procedure, due to finding that either the measure does not constitute SA, or that it can be authorised (‘final positive decision’) or that it cannot be authorised (‘final negative decision’).

ecj: where the modalities of an SA are so indissolubly linked to the object of the SA, that it is impossible to evaluate them separately, the compatibility of the SA [between that state and the euinternalmarket, and between the proposed SA and eu law (envirlaw; clcp; etc], must be determined by Article 108 TFEU…

ACCC/C/2015/128

concerned SA for the development of a nuclear power station, in which the EC initiated the formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU and adopted a final positive decision on the basis of the compatibility grounds set out under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU

ACCC: SA facilitated the infringement of EU environmental law….thus, ACCC concluded in case ACCC/C/2015/128 , that the EU is in breach of the AC with regard to SA dopas adopted by the EC under Article 108(2) TFEU

Possibilities for 3PS [EG COCOO] to hold ec accountable for SA DOPAS

3PS play an important role in SA, at the administrative and then at the judicial stage, especially if they can show their interests might be affected by the granting of SA

At the administrative stage:

3PS [ interested parties] may submit comments on a EC decision to open the formal investigation procedure

3PS can also submit complaints about SA granted by Member States without prior notification, or about SA used by the beneficiary in breach of the conditions set out in the relevant SA

3PS can be a valuable source of information throughout the procedure, including by signalling possible breaches of EU environmental law (el) or cl.

At the judicial stage:

a/ ec dopa not to raise objections to a SA: 3PS can bring a claim before the GC, against a SA, to trigger a formal investigation

b/ ec dopa to allow the SA [ final positive decision (like the EC decision the ACCC found to breach the AC)] : 3PS may only claim if are directly harmed [Plaumann test of ‘individual concern’ ] …so, cocoo does not have locus…but can raise complaint to the accc.

c/ 3ps may challenge the legality of EU SA dopas before national courts if they have standing under national law…. As a result, the national courts may, following a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice, ask the Court to declare the Commission State aid decision invalid

d/ 3ps may challenge projects already in receipt of SA, at the national level in cases of alleged breaches of EU el and/or cl….eg: Member State , or EU, failed AC compliance; or the receiving corp is failing the SA conditions.

public consultation process

2022, ec published on the ‘Have your say’ portal , a call for evidence and an online public consultation.

ec also organised a virtual meeting open to all interested stakeholders (e.g. environmental NGOs, academics, law firms, public authorities) , followed by an ad hoc joint meeting between Member State experts from the competition/SA, and the Aarhus Expert Group

The Good Law Project

is a political project using litigation to drive the demand for change. It has particular areas of interest, including tax, workers’ rights, and Brexit

the Director seeks [< > cocoo helps him] potential cases which meet the Project’s case selection criteria, secures pro bono advice from counsel, and seeks solicitors and counsel… and then crowdfunds before claim stage.

THE GELMATO STRATEGY

1- PADI RESEARCHES (of ANY YEAR…BECAUSE THE LIMITATION CLOCK HAS NOT STARTED TICKING THANKS TO CONCEALMENT), EX/CAT Press Releases (about statements of objection (SOs)), and also Bloomberg, to find possible Gelmatos (cos that do not fully know they still* have a claim)

* tort claims, set out in section 2 of the Limitation Act, is that claims are time-barred six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued….. EXCEPTION: where there is “deliberate concealment” of facts relevant to the cause of action (which is frequently alleged in follow-on damages claims of this nature and indeed was agreed between the parties in this case), the limitation clock only starts to run from the time a claimant discovered, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered, the relevant facts.

Gelmatos still have a claim becos the fact they have a claim has been CONCEALED from them.

IDEALLY, there will be an anticompetition EC/CATetc Regularory Decision* (that could legitimate Gelmatos to make a claim) which was never published. thus, the harm has been concealed from them by both the EC/CAT and by the perpetrators…. (but PADI found it… ).

2- This finding of padi research is disclosed to the Gelmatos under total confidenciality and oath not to disclose, and, their offer contract to instruct me as lawyer, as consideration for my research and for disclosing it to them in confidentiality)… I offer Gelmatos a CFA as legal representative, so i can start the PAP….before they can refuse i let them know my plans to organise sh action*, or alternatively sell the package to shortsellers, and then to the news, stating the possible recklessness of Directors in failing to issue claim to obtain redress for the company.

could contact the larges shareholders (in confidentiality) of the company … or padi buys shares and ask shs to relinquish votes….to press the Directors to let me PAP.. or to start shareholder action v company for not starting the claim…..

* If there is such unpublished Regulatory Decision I can PAP for a follow on claim…. Alternatively, if there is no such Decision, I can PAP for a stand alone claim.

Whether stand alone or follow on, my PAP will be for a claim for anticompetition damages (v anyone), and the goal is ADR or private settlement cash for the Gelmatos. i keep my fees (legal + PADI Donation for its research)

sra Rule 4 solicitors code of conduct:

A solicitor must not communicate with any party who, to the solicitor’s knowledge, has retained a solicitor to act in the matter, except:

(a) To request the name and address of their solicitor;

(b) where the other solicitor has refused for no adequate reason to pass on messages to their client and has been warned of the intention to contact their client directly,

(c) with that other solicitor’s consent

(d) on a different matter: The Bar Code of Conduct gC24: where the other side is legally represented , but you are conducting correspondence on a different matter, you are not expected to correspond with that other solicitor…..paragraph 1.2 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors: You do not abuse your position by taking unfair advantage of clients or others.’

COCOO COMBINES

ANTICORRUPTION LAW (AL) + ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (EL) + HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (HRL) + COMPETITION LAW (CL)

TO WIN SETTLEMENTS

search for tenders of over 2 billion:

GOV UK NEWS PUBLIC PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS

FIND A HIGH VALUE CONTRACT UK <> FRAs

Find a Tender Contracts Finder Tender Pipeline [best]

GOV UK COMPETITION UPDATES

MERGERS ORDERS AND UNDERTAKINGS REGISTER

BREACHES OF MERGERS ORDERS/UNDERTAKINGS/REMEDIES

COCOO’S 2 STRATEGIES

A/ JR [eg glp v enzc]. 3m tl.

A SURPRISING PIECE OF NEWS MAKES COCOO/GLP WONDER [WE KNOW NOTHING YET!], SO WE JR, TO FIND OUT…. [THANKS TO JR’S SHORT TL 3M, WE DO NOT NEED A LONG PAP OR TO KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE CASE] …WE JUST WANT TO KNOW [EG WHY A LARGE CONTRACT IS GIVEN TO SMALL FIRM ETC]…CLAIM FOR POSSIBLE FAILED PROCUREMENT PROCESS

B/ TORT CLAIM HARM TO WPI [TAXPAYER ETC] 5 years tl, from date known.

DIG SHIT [TO KNOW] AND KEEP EYE ON NEWS, ABOUT LARGE FIRMS [CONSISTENTLY] GETTING LARGE CONTRACTS [EG MOD/BAES] … CLAIM THAT THEY FAILED PROC.PROCESS OR JUST CEASED BEING ELIGIBLE FOR THE CONTRACT…DUE TO NEW/ONGOING CLCP BREACHES, ,BRIBING ETC…SO CONTRACT IS VOID OR STOPPED…..

cocoo’s STANDING

2011.DEFENSA DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE  EN EL OCA [ORDEN CONTENCIOSO-ADMINISTRATIVO]...

de acuerdo con el Convenio de Aarhus, el Derecho comunitario y el español