1 See European Convention on Human Rights art. 6, 13, Sept. 3, 1953, 14 C.E.T.S. 194.Google Scholar

2 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art. 47, Dec. 7, 2000, 2000 O.J. (C364) 1 (stipulating that “everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal”).Google Scholar

3 Foto-Frost v. Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost, CJEU Case 314/85, 1987 E.C.R. 4199.Google Scholar

4 Plaumann & Co. v. Comm'n, CJEU Case 25/62, 1963 E.C.R. 95.Google Scholar

5 See generally Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace Int'l) & Others v. Comm'n, CJEU Case T-585/93, 1995 E.C.R. II-2205; Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace Int'l) & Others v. Comm'n, CJEU Case C-321/95 P, 1998 E.C.R. I-1651.Google Scholar

6 See Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council, CJEU Case C-50/00 P, 2002 E.C.R. I-6677; Comm'n v. Jégo-Quéré & Cie, CJEU Case C-263/02 P, 2004 E.C.R. I-3425.Google Scholar

7 This international instrument was adopted by the European Community on 17 February 2005 by Decision 2005/370/EC and it provides, in Article 9(2), that the contracting parties should ensure that members of the public concerned having a sufficient interest or, alternatively, maintaining impairment of a right (where the administrative procedural law of a party requires this as a precondition), have access to a review procedure to challenge the substantive and procedural legality of decisions concerning activities subject to the public participation requirements of Article 6 of the Convention itself. Furthermore, Article 9(3) provides for the obligation for the parties to provide for a wide access of the members of the public to review procedures to challenge the legality of decisions affecting the environment.Google Scholar

8 Plaumann & Co. v. Comm'n, CJEU Case 25/62.Google Scholar

9 For criticism on the standing requirements of individual applicants under Article 230 EC, see Angela Ward, Locus Standi Under Article 230(4) of the EC Treaty: Crafting a Coherent Test for a Wobbly Polity, 22 Y.B. of Eur. L. 45 (2003); Anthony Arnull, Private Applicants and the Action for Annulment Since Codorniu, 38 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 7 (2001); José Manuel Cortés Martín, Ubi ius, Ibi Remedium?–Locus Standi of Private Applicants Under Article 230(4) EC at a European Constitutional Crossroads, 11 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 233 (2004); Angela Ward, Amsterdam and Amendment to Article 230: An Opportunity Lost or Simply Deferred?, in The future of the judicial system of the European Union 37 (Alan Dashwood & Angus Johnston eds., 2001); Anatole Abaquesne De Parfouru, Locus Standi of Private Applicants Under the Article 230 EC Action for Annulment: Any Lessons to be Learnt From France?, 14 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 361 (2007); Adam Cygan, Protecting the Interests of Civil Society in Community Decision-Making–The Limits of Article 230 EC, 52 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 995 (2003); Xavier Lewis, Standing of Private Plaintiffs to Annul Generally Applicable European Community Measures: If the System is Broken, Where Should it be Fixed?, 30 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1496 (2006–2007). Specifically with regard to environmental policy, see for example Birgit Dette, Access to Justice in Environmental Matters; A Fundamental Democratic Right, in Europe and the Environment: Legal Essays in Honour of Ludwig Kramer 1 (Marco Onida ed., 2004).Google Scholar

10 Usher, John, Direct and Individual Concern–An Effective Remedy or a Conventional Solution?, 28 Eur. L. Rev. 575 (2005); Filip Ragolle, Access to Justice for Private Applicants in the Community Legal Order: Recent (r)evolutions, 28 Eur. L. Rev. 90 (2003); Albertina Albors-Llorens, The Standing of Private Parties to Challenge Community Measures: Has the European Court Missed the Boat?, 62 Cambridge L. J. 72 (2003). Specifically with regard to environmental policy, see Nicole Gérard, Access to Justice on Environmental Matters—A Case of Double Standards?, 140 J. Envtl. l. 149 (1996); Frédérique Berrod, Comment to Greenpeace, 36 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 635 (1999); Nicole Gérard, Access to the European Court of Justice: A Lost Opportunity, 10 J. Envtl. L. 338 (1998); Diana L. Torrens, Locus Standi for Environmental Associations Under EC Law—Greenpeace: A Missed Opportunity for the ECJ, 8 Rev. Eur. Community & Int'l Envtl. L. 336 (1999).Google Scholar

11 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council, CJEU Case C-50/00 P, 2002 E.C.R. I-6677.Google Scholar

12 Id. at para. 60 (giving opinion of Advocate General Jacobs). In this context, the AG also highlighted the perverse effects of the Plaumann test, namely that the greater the number of persons affected by a measure, the less likely than an action under Article 230(4) EC would succeed.Google Scholar

13 Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA v. Comm'n, CJEU Case T-177/01, 2002 E.C.R. II-2365.Google Scholar

14 Koch, Cornelia, European Community—Challenge of Community Fisheries Regulation—Admissibility of Individual Applications Under Article 230(4), 98 Am. J. Int'l L., 814, 815 (2004).Google Scholar

15 Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA v. Comm'n, CJEU Case T-177/01, 2002 E.C.R. II-2365, para. 51.Google Scholar

16 Damian Chalmers, European Union Public Law 424 (2010).Google Scholar

17 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council, CJEU Case C-50/00 P, 2002 E.C.R. I-6677, para. 44.Google Scholar

18 Comm'n v. Jégo-Quéré & Cie, CJEU Case C-263/02 P, 2004 E.C.R. I-3425.Google Scholar

19 See Koch, supra note 14, at 818.Google Scholar

20 See Koch, supra note 14, at 819. See also Damian Chalmers & Giorgio Monti, European Union Law 433 (4^th ed., 2006); Filip Ragolle, Access to justice for Private Applicants in the Community Legal Order: Recent (r)evolutions, 28 Eur. L. Rev. 90, 100 (2003); Takis Tridimas & Sara Poli, Locus Standi of Individuals Under Article 230(4): The Return of Euridice?, in Continuity and Change in EU Law: Essays in Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs 81 (Anthony Arnull, Piet Eeckhout & Takis Tridimas eds., 2008); Albertina Albors-Llorens, The Standing of Private Parties to Challenge Community Measures: Has the European Court Missed the Boat?, 62 Cambridge L. J. 72, 90 (2003); Anatole Abaquesne De Parfouru, Locus Standi of Private Applicants Under the Article 230 EC Action for Annulment: Any Lessons to be Learnt From France?, 14 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 361, 387 (2007).Google Scholar

21 Many scholars have considered these rulings by the ECJ as a missed opportunity to broaden the access to the EU courts by private litigants and regarded them as unconvincing. See, e.g., Koch, supra note 14, at 819; Damian Chalmers & Giorgio Monti, European Union Law 432–33 (4^th Ed., 2006); Christopher Brown & John Morijn, Comment on Jégo-Quéré, 41 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1639, 1654 (2004); Filip Ragolle, Access to Justice for Private Applicants in the Community Legal Order: Recent (r)evolutions, 28 Eur. L. Rev. 90, 101 (2003); Albertina Albors-Llorens, The Standing of Private Parties to Challenge Community Measures: Has the European Court Missed the Boat?, 62 Cambridge L. J. 72, 92 (2003); José Manuel Cortés Martín, Ubi ius, Ibi Remedium?–Locus Standi of Private Applicants Under Article 230(4) EC at a European Constitutional Crossroads, 11 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 233, 245 (2004).Google Scholar

22 See generally Stephan Balthasar, Locus Standi Rules for Challenges to Regulatory Acts by Private Applicants: The New Art. 263(4) TFEU, 35 Eur. L. Rev. 542 (2010).Google Scholar

23 Id. at 544.Google Scholar

24 Paul Craig & Gráinne de Búrca, EU Law 64 (2011).Google Scholar

25 See Balthasar, supra note 22, at 545.Google Scholar

26 Id. Google Scholar

27 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami & Others v. European Parliament & Council of the European Union, CJEU Case T-18/10, 2011 E.C.R. II-05599.Google Scholar

28 Id. at para. 50.Google Scholar

29 Id. at para. 56.Google Scholar

30 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami & Others v. European Parliament & Council of the European Union, CJEU Case C-583/11P, available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&docid=132541.Google Scholar

31 Id. Google Scholar

32 Id. at para. 38.Google Scholar

33 Id. at paras. 115–24.Google Scholar

34 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v. Commission, CJEU Case T-526/10, (Apr. 25, 2013) available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=T-526/10.Google Scholar

35 Id. at para. 21.Google Scholar

36 Id. at para 18.Google Scholar

37 Microban v. Comm'n, CJEU Case T-262/10, 2011 E.C.R. II-07697 [hereinafter Microban].Google Scholar

38 Peers, Steve & Costa, Mario, Court of Justice of the European Union (General Chamber), Judicial Review of EU Acts After the Treaty of Lisbon; Order of 6 September 2011, Case T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v. Commission & Judgment of 25 October 2011, Case T-262/10 Microban v. Commission, 8 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 82, 90 (2012).Google Scholar

39 Microban at para. 21.Google Scholar

40 Id. at para. 23.Google Scholar

41 Id. at para. 38.Google Scholar

42 See Balthasar, supra note 22, at 543.Google Scholar

43 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami & Others v. European Parliament & Council of the European Union, CJEU Case T-18/10, 2011 E.C.R. II-05599, para. 63.Google Scholar

44 Microban at para. 23.Google Scholar

45 See Balthasar, supra note 22, at 548.Google Scholar

46 Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA v. Comm'n, CJEU Case T-177/01, 2002 E.C.R. II-2365.Google Scholar

47 Comm'n v. Jégo-Quéré & Cie, CJEU Case C-263/02 P, 2004 E.C.R. I-3425.Google Scholar

48 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami & Others v. European Parliament & Council of the European Union, CJEU Case T-18/10, 2011 E.C.R. II-05599, para. 51.Google Scholar

49 The requirements of direct concern, general application, and no implementing measures would still have to be fulfilled, but will not be assessed as what is of interest is the scope of regulatory acts. Google Scholar

50 Plaumann & Co. v. Comm'n, CJEU Case 25/62, at 107.Google Scholar

51 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council, CJEU Case C-50/00 P, 2002 E.C.R. I-6677.Google Scholar

52 Id. Google Scholar

53 Comm'n v. Jégo-Quéré & Cie, CJEU Case C-263/02 P, 2004 E.C.R. I-3425.Google Scholar

54 Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace Int'l) & Others v. Comm'n, CJEU Case T-585/93, 1995 E.C.R. II-2205, at para. 50.Google Scholar

55 Plaumann & Co. v. Comm'n, CJEU Case 25/62, 1963 E.C.R. 95.Google Scholar

56 Commission Regulation 1367/2006, 2006 O.J. (L264) 13.Google Scholar

57 Id. at art. 12(1). On this point and specifically with regard to the compliance by the EU with its obligations stemming from the Aarhus Convention, see Marc Pallemaerts, Compliance by the European Community with its Obligations on Access to Justice as a Party to the Aarhus Convention 41 (Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2009). For a discussion of the drafting history of this Article, see Marc Pallemaerts, Access to Environmental Justice at EU Level Has the ‘Aarhus Regulation’ Improved the Situation?, in The Aarhus Convention at Ten—Interactions and Tensions between Conventional International Law and EU Environmental Law 287 (Marc Pallemaerts ed., 2011).Google Scholar

58 European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Stichting Natuur en Milieu v. Commission, CJEU Case T-236/04 & T-241/04, 2005 E.C.R. II-04945; WWF-UK Ltd. V. Council, CJEU Case T-91/07, 2008 E.C.R. II-81 (confirmed in appeal in case WWF-UK v. Council, CJEU C-355/08 P, 2009 E.C.R. I-73); Regiao autónoma dos Acores v. Council, CJEU Case T-37/04, 2008 E.C.R. II-103 (confirmed in appeal in case Regiao autónoma dos Acores v. Council, CJEU C-444/08, 2009 E.C.R. I-200). For a closer examination of this case law, see Mariolina Eliantonio, Towards an Ever Dirtier Europe?: The Restrictive Standing of Environmental NGOs Before the European Courts and the Aarhus Convention, 7 Croatian Y.B. of Eur. L. & Pol'y 69 (2011); Marc Pallemaerts, Access to Environmental Justice at EU Level–Has the ‘Aarhus Regulation’ Improved the Situation?, in The Aarhus Convention at Ten—Interactions and Tensions between Conventional International Law and EU Environmental Law 287, 297 (Marc Pallemaerts ed., 2011).Google Scholar

59 Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace Int'l) & Others v. Comm'n, CJEU Case T-585/93, 1995 E.C.R. II-2205 (confirmed in appeal in Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace Int'l) & Others v. Commission, CJEU Case C-321/95 P, 1998 E.C.R. I-1651).Google Scholar

60 European Environmental Bureau (EEB) & Stichting Natuur en Milieu v. Comm'n, CJEU Case T-236/04 & T-241/04, 2005 E.C.R. II-04945.Google Scholar

61 WWF-UK Ltd. v. Council, CJEU Case T-91/07, 2008 E.C.R. II-81 (confirmed in appeal in WWF-UK v. Council, CJEU Case C-355/08 P, 2009 E.C.R. I-73).Google Scholar

62 Regiao autónoma dos Acores v. Council, CJEU Case T-37/04, 2008 E.C.R. II-103 (confirmed in appeal in Regiao autónoma dos Acores v. Council, CJEU Case C-444/08, 2009 E.C.R. I-200).Google Scholar

63 Jans, Jan H., Did Baron von Munchhausen Ever Visit Aarhus? Some Critical Remarks on the Proposal for a Regulation on the Application of the Provisions of the Aarhus Convention to EC Institutions and Bodies, in Reflections on 30 Years of EU Environmental Law; A High Level of Protection? 474, 485 (Richard Macrory ed., 2006).Google Scholar

64 Report of the Compliance Committee of the Aarhus Convention, Findings and Recommendations with Regard to Communication ACCC/C/2008/32 (Part I) Concerning Compliance by the European Union 11–14, April 2011, Geneva, available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/compliance/CC-32/ece.mp.pp.c.1.2011.4.add.1.edited.adv%20copy.pdf, at para. 87.Google Scholar