This comparative book explores the dynamics driving how courts across Europe and beyond understand and analyse scientific information in nature conservation. The Habitats and the Birds Directives—the core of EU nature conservation law—are usually seen as the most ‘uniform’ parts of EU environmental law. This book analyses the case law from 11 current and former EU Member States’ courts and explores the dynamics of how, and crucially why, their understandings of scientific uncertainty on the one hand, and EU environmental principles on the other, vary.
The courts’ scope and depth of review, access to scientific knowledge, and scientific literacy all influence such decisions—as does their interpretation of norms and principles. How have the courts evaluated scientific evidence, encompassing its essential uncertainties? This book answers this and many more questions pertinent to EU environmental law, comparative environmental law, administrative law, and STS studies.
Co-edited by experienced leaders in the field, and with outstanding contributors, this book is an essential guide to the dynamics of nature conservation law.
Introduction Mariolina Eliantonio (Maastricht University, the Netherlands), Emma Lees (European University Institute, Italy) and Tiina Paloniitty (University of Helsinki, Finland) Part I: Setting the Scene: Courts, Science and the Habitats Directive 1. ‘Science’ in Court – The Importance of Specificity Emma Lees (European University Institute, Italy) and Tiina Paloniitty (University of Helsinki, Finland) 2. The European Court of Justice’s Approach to Scientific and Factual Matters in the Habitats Directive – Between Uncertainty and Precaution Augustin Garcia Ureta (University of the Basque Country, Spain) Part II: Reviewing Science and Law in the Member States’ Courts 3. Judicial Review and Enforcement of The Habitats Directive in Ireland Áine Ryall (University College Cork, Ireland) 4. The Boundaries of Administrative Judicial Review in Lithuania in Natura 2000 Cases Jurgita Paužaite-Kulvinskiene (Vilnius University, Lithuania) and Indre Žvaigždiniene (Vilnius University, Lithuania) 5. The Scrutiny of Scientific Evidence by UK Courts in Environmental Decisions: Legality, the Fact-Law Distinction, and (Sometimes) Self-Limiting Review Catherine Caine (University of Exeter, UK) and Richard Broadbent (Freeths LLP, UK) 6. Judicial Review of the Application of Article 6(3) Habitats Directive: How the Dutch Council of State Integrates Science, Expertise and Scientific Uncertainty Floor Fleurke (Tilburg University, the Netherlands) 7. Of Ostensible Self-Restraint, Explicit Environmental Protection, and a Missing Link: the Appropriate Assessment in Italy Roberto Caranta (Turin University, Italy) 8. Legal Approaches to Scientific Uncertainty in Germany - The Case of EU Nature Conservation Law Wolfgang Köck (Helmholz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Germany) and Till Markus (University of Bremen, Germany) 9. Reasoning Styles, the Role of Discretionary Judicial Choices and the Limits of Judicial Review: the Hungarian Courts’ Experience with the Habitats and the Bird Directives Katalin Sulyok (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary) 10. The EU Nature Conservation Law in Finnish Judicial Review: Various Avenues, Coalescing Case Law? Tiina Paloniitty (University of Helsinki, Finland) and Hanna Nieminen-Finne (Vaasa Administrative Court, Finland) 11. The Intensity of Judicial Review in Environmental Litigation in Greek Law with Special Regard to Habitats Sites Konstantinos Gogos (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece) 12. The Weakness of the Judiciary and the Poor Implementation of the Habitats Directive: How Judicial Self-Restraint Endangers Biodiversity Protection in France François-Vivien Guiot (University of Pau, France) 13. The Habitats Directive in the Romanian Courts: Procedure vs Substance Dacian Dragos (Babes Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania) and Bogdana Neamtu (Babes Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania) Part III Broadening the View 14. Biodiversity in the Court: The Certainty of Contests about Uncertainty Brian J Preston (The New South Wales Land and Environment Court, Australia) 15. Scientific Uncertainty before the Court of Justice and the General Court: Is the Judicial Toolbox Sufficient? Mariolina Eliantonio (Maastricht University, the Netherlands) and Michal Krajewski (Maastricht University, the Netherlands) Conclusions Mariolina Eliantonio (Maastricht University, the Netherlands), Emma Lees (European University Institute, Italy) and Tiina Paloniitty (University of Helsinki, Finland)
Mariolina Eliantonio is Professor of European and Comparative Administrative Law and Procedure at Maastricht University, the Netherlands. Emma Lees is Professor of Transnational Law at the European University Institute, Italy, and Professor of Environmental and Property Law, University of Cambridge, UK. Tiina Paloniitty is Postdoctoral Researcher of Environmental and Sustainability Law at Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki, Finland.
