Contenu du sommaire

In a judgment of the 25th June 2020, delivered by the Grand Chamber, the Court of justice deals once again with two major issues: the scope of the directive 2001/42 on strategic environmental assessment and the maintenance of the effects of a national measure that contravene the EU law. The answers given by the Court consolidate the effectiveness of the EU law and question the solutions adopted by the French administrative judge.

Whereas the jurisdictions concerning the opinion related to the quality of environmental impact assessment and the decision to subject to evaluation after a case-by-case assessment were commonly entrusted to the environmental authority, the decree of July 3, 2020 – under the law of November 8, 2019 related to the energy and the climate – has separated these missions and has created an "authority in charge of the case-by-case assessment". Without having practical consequences for the national`np pagenum="712"/b environmental authority designated, this scission sustains the authority of the regional prefect regarding the decision to subject to evaluation some projects after a case-by-case assessment. Such a solution, confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Conseil d'Etat, raises several questions related to the management of potential conflicts of interests and the compliance with the European Union Law.

Countryside's noises and odours are subject to litigations. In order to discourage these trials whose number is unknown, the legislator wanted to create a rural sensory heritage that could not be by nature abnormal neighbourhood's disturbances. In front of many juridical criticals, the legislator has only registered natural noises and odours in the national heritage. But its inventory must be very difficult and useless. The jurisprudence about neighbourhood's disturbances is indeed well established and balanced. Furthermore, it must be codified in the civil code. So, this law is more a symbolic act than a useful norm.

The year 2020 was punctuated by the Covid pandemic19 and was a year of postponement, at the level of international governance, of major political negotiations for the protection of biodiversity. On the other hand, within the European Union, the year was marked by real progress in the Union's general policy in favor of biodiversity protection, which was reflected in its external action, particularly during the technical negotiations on the future post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework within the Convention on Biological Diversity. This column will therefore reflect the leading role in the protection of biodiversity that the European Union has strongly affirmed during this period.

The rulings of the ECJ in 2020 concerning pollution and nuisances follow, first of all, a constant path of cases over the last few years, i.e. recalling Member States to comply with their obligations under European legislation on air or water quality. There are also more innovative issues, showing the complexity of decision-making process within the European administrative space, especially when it deals with sensitive issues such as glyphosate, while at the same time making access to the courts uncertain in order to guarantee the legality of European and national action in this area.

Interpretatio cessat in claris. This adage should inspire more the Charter for the environment's litigation. This year, finally, the right to live in a safe and healthy environment is raised to the rank of other constitutional rights. However, the judicial review seems to justify rather than limit the restrictions that the legislator can place on the rights, obligations and principles proclaimed by the Charter for the environment.

This column deals with the case-law relating to the French environmental Charter before the Council of State and the Court of cassation over the last twelve months (july 2020 – june 2021). The Council of State did not issue any major decision of principle, even if we note the first promising application of the precautionary principle in favor of the protection of wild species. The administrative judge has also taken a step, which should be confirmed and clarified, towards the recognition of the "right to environmental protection" as a "liberté fondamentale" (fundamental freedom). This year, the Court of Cassation has again made very few references to the environmental Charter. One of them is nevertheless significant, concerning the referral of a "question prioritaire de constitutionnalité" (preliminary ruling of`np pagenum="778"/b constitutionality) on the critical question of the compatibility of the definition of recoverable ecological damage with the duties to protect and repair the environment.

The Water Law's topicality of the past two years concerns all areas: governance, regulation of the uses, protection of natural areas and management of overweight and water shortage, in the context of climate changes that weakens essential environments and uses.