Mediaboss Marketing

December 20th, 2019

The Governments proposals to limit citizens and environmental NGOs access to the courts to challenge planning decisions are out of touch with EU and international law, a leading legal expert has warned.

Speaking at an event run by the Planning, Environmental, and Local Government Bar Association of Ireland last night, Dr Aine Ryall of University College Cork raised serious concern with the recently released Heads of the Housing and Planning Development Bill 2019.

If passed, the Bill set to be brought forward by Eoghan Murphy TD would introduce a new cost regime and change standing rules for citizens and environmental groups to take legal challenges over a whole range of environmental and planning-related decisions.

The Department of Housing has said that the changes would speed up legal proceedings following an increase in legal challenges in the High Court that is causing backlogs and associated delays to large infrastructure projects.

Critics, including various civil society groups and legal experts, argue that the proposals would unfairly limit standing rights and make it prohibitively expensive to take legal cases.

The proposed legislation, for example, would make it harder for environmental groups to bring a legal case by mandating that they must be in existence for at least three years and have over 100 members.

Running into conflict with EU law

Dr Ryall said that these proposals run into conflict with our responsibilities to ensure wide access to justice rights under both EU law and the Aarhus Convention. The convention gives a number of rights to the public with regard to the environment, including the right to access to justice that is fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.

Dr Ryall said that the proposed changes in the Heads of the Bill would rollback on access to justice rights and make it almost impossible for environmental NGOs and local groups to bring challenges.

The environmental law expert said it is alarming that the Government is taking such moves now when we need, more than ever, to take a more robust overview of planning and environmental decision making as we face a biodiversity and climate crisis.

While parties to the Aarhus Convention have some discretion as to how they set up their domestic access to justice rules, Dr Ryall said that there are clear limits on how far they can go. There is a bottom line and that is the wide access to justice obligation, she added.

Ms Ryall, who sits on the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) but was speaking in a personal capacity last night, pointed to several ACCC cases where it was determined that national rules must not block or widely restrict access to justice for environmental and citizen groups.

She added that several recent European Court of Justice decisions indicate that wide access to justice requirement trumps the flexibility or discretion of states to set access to justice criteria.

She said that an examination of European case law reveals that the role of environmental groups is almost sacrosanct, meaning that any rowing back on their standing rights is going to cause some tension with European Union law.

Citizens also pushed out

Dr Ryall also raised concerns with proposals to change standing rights requirements for citizens who would have to show that they are directly affected by a proposed development in a way which is peculiar or personal to them. This, she said, appears to be especially restrictive.

The proposed legislation also calls for applicants to prove that they had prior participation in the planning process through the likes of sending submissions on live planning applications in order to qualify to take a case.

In addition, shesaid, that there is no real clear justification for the proposed changes in theHeads of the Bill apart from to talk about alleged unnecessary judicialreviews that are costing everybody money.

That, in my view, isnt enough of a justification. We need to see clearly are there really unnecessary JRs and, if so, how many? And if there are delays in the system, whats causing these delays? Dr Ryall added.

Be careful what you wish for

She warned the Governmentthat it needs to be careful with what you wish for as the proposed changesare unlikely to speed up the system and will instead trigger more litigation.

The more you change the law and the more you play around with the rules, the more litigation you are going to have, and if you are playing with EU law, you are probably going to create the situation where references will need to be made to Luxembourg and thats going to take 18 months [before] it comes back, she said.

She stressed that the Government should instead look to improve the quality of decision making in the first instance by better resourcing the Board and local authorities to hire experts and other staff to process development applications in a timely and efficient manner.

A public consultation on the Heads of the Bill was launched on 9 December with a deadline of 13 January, providing concerned parties just 23 working days over the holiday period to provide feedback.

Following pressure from environmental groups, opposition politicians, and Committee members, the Minister agreed on Tuesday to extend the deadline until 27 January 2020.

Related Articles:

More here:
Planning Bill out of touch with international and EU law - The Green News

Stains produced by the evaporation of coffee spills Jacob Gube on Wikimedia

In a recent judgement (19 December 2019), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies that an airlines liability for scalding (burns) caused by hot coffee that tipped over on a flight for unknown reasons does not require that a hazard typically associated with flight materialised.

In the present case, a young girl seeks compensation from the (insolvent) Austrian airline Niki Luftfahrt GmbH on account of scalding that she suffered when, on a flight from Palma de Mallorca (Spain) to Vienna (Austria), the hot coffee that had been served to her father and placed on his folding table tray tipped over for unknown reasons. The airline contends that it not liable for what occurred since it was not an accident within the meaning of the Montreal Convention (1), which governs the liability of airlines in the event of accidents.

The airline argued that that concept requires the materialisation of a hazard typically associated with flight, a condition that was not fulfilled in the present case. It could not be established whether the cup of coffee tipped over due to a defect in the folding tray table or due to vibration of the aircraft. The Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) asked the Court to clarify the concept of accident within the meaning of the Montreal Convention, which does not define it.

According to the Court, the ordinary meaning given to the concept of accident is that of an unforeseen, harmful and involuntary event. Furthermore, the Court notes in particular that the Montreal Convention is intended to lay down a system of strict liability for airlines while maintaining an equitable balance of interests.

The Court concludes that both the ordinary meaning of the concept of accident and the objectives of the Montreal Convention preclude subjecting the liability of airlines to the condition that the damage is due to the materialisation of a hazard typically associated with aviation or to there being a connection between the accident and the operation or movement of the aircraft. The Court recalls that the Montreal Convention allows airlines to exclude or limit their liability. An airline may be exonerated from its liability or limit it by proving that the passenger himself caused or contributed to the damage. In addition, an airline may limit its liability to 100 000 Special Drawing Rights (2) by proving that the damage was not caused by its negligence or that it was caused solely by the negligence of a third party.

The Court, therefore, answers the Oberster Gerichtshof that the concept of accident at issue covers all situations occurring on board an aircraft in which an object used when serving passengers has caused bodily injury to a passenger, without it being necessary to examine whether those situations stem from a hazard typically associated with aviation.

1 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38), which entered into force, so far as the European Union is concerned, on 28 June2004. That convention is an integral part of the European Union legal order.

2 As defined by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). According to the IMF, at the beginning of December 2019, a Special Drawing Right was worth approximately 1.24.

Related

Read more:
Court of Justice of the European Union rules: an airline is liable for the harm caused by a spilt c ... - Aviation24.be

Today, the European Council appointed Fabio Panetta and Isabel Schnabel to be members of the European Central Bank's executive board as of 1 January 2020.

The decision was taken by the European Council by written procedure.

The Council (Economic and Financial Affairs) issued a formal recommendation to the European Council to appoint Fabio Panetta on 10 October 2019 and a similar formal recommendation to appoint Isabel Schnabel on 8 November 2019.

The European Central Bank Governing Council delivered its opinions on Panetta on 23 October and on Schnabel on 11 December. The European Parliament delivered opinions on both candidates on 17 December.

Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union specifies that appointments to the ECB executive board are made "by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, from among persons of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters, on a recommendation from the Council, after it has consulted the European Parliament and the Governing Council of the European Central Bank."

The ECB executive board is responsible for the implementation of euro area monetary policy, as laid down by the ECB governing council. It is composed of the President, the Vice President and four other members, all appointed for a non-renewable 8-year term. The governing council is composed of six executive board members and the governors of national central banks of the euro area member states.

More:
ECB: Panetta and Schnabel appointed members of the executive board - EU News

New figures released today (20 December 2019) by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show in the twelve months to September 2019 that UK exports to outside the EU grew nearly 5 times as fast as exports to countries inside the bloc.

UK exports to the EU grew by 1.3% and now total 296.8 billion, while exports to non-EU countries saw growth of 6.3% to reach 376.7 billion.

Over the 12-month period, non-EU markets remained the top destination for the UKs renowned service sector. 60.2% of UK services exports, including financial, travel and transport, go to non-EU markets and are now worth 190.8 billion.

These figures show how big the opportunities are for British businesses exporting across the world, and the strength of the trade relationship with the USA and Japan.

This government will continue to back our business communities to ensure they have the tools to seize this opportunity and take full advantage of all its benefits.

My priority is to strike new trade deals with key partners and to open up new markets to British products as we go forward and leave the European Union.

The USA maintains its position as the number 1 destination for British goods and services, with increased demand driving exports up 11.4% to 133.7 billion - compared to 120.0 billion in the previous 12 months.

Todays figures also reveal an increase in trade with Japan rising by 7.6%, from 13.8 billion to 14.8 billion. Japan is already the UKs fourth largest non-EU trading partner and one of the worlds fastest growing markets.

Original post:
UK exports beyond the EU growing five times as fast - GOV.UK

BRUSSELS European Union lawmakers on Tuesday strongly criticized corruption and self-dealing in the blocs $65-billion-a-year farm subsidy program but were sharply divided over how or whether to reform a system that has become a third rail of European politics.

At a time of festering anti-European sentiment, the debate over one of the worlds largest subsidy programs highlighted a fissure that cuts far deeper than a simple dispute over farm policy. It raised the question of how to combat political corruption without infringing on the independence of the blocs 28 nations and further emboldening its far-right populist critics.

Tuesdays debate happened during a European Parliament budget oversight hearing, which was prompted, in part, by a New York Times investigation into the farm subsidy program, known as the Common Agricultural Policy or C.A.P. In November, the Times revealed how subsidies help underwrite oligarchs, enrich politicians and encourage land-grabbing and Mafia-style tactics.

The recent New York Times report on the abuse of C.A.P. subsidies is damning and undermines trust in government, said Mick Wallace, a European lawmaker from Ireland.

The Times tracked state land sales and subsidies that benefited friends and family members of Hungarys prime minister, Viktor Orban, while also identifying at least $79 million in government subsidies paid to companies owned by the Andrej Babis, prime minister of the Czech Republic.

It quite ironic to see populists such as Andrej Babis and Viktor Orban making such hue and cry about how European Union money is spent, while the same two people use E.U. money to enrich their friends, said Lara Wolters, a lawmaker from the Netherlands and member of the budget oversight committee.

In the hearing, Ms. Wolters argued that Parliament should reconsider the core premise of the subsidy program that farmers are paid based on how much land they control.

Such a change would curb the ability of national leaders to use farmland as political chits. And it could reduce the incentives for large, politically powerful companies to acquire more land. But it would also amount to a seismic overhaul of a fund regarded as sacrosanct by many national politicians and many farmers.

European lawmakers are now debating the renewal of the blocs next seven-year farm bill. National leaders want more discretion on how to spend the money, and farmers want fewer administrative requirements. In Brussels, there is little appetite for a major reform that would impose greater oversight on governments even those that have manipulated or abused the system.

So the latest proposal, which will be debated in the coming months, gives national leaders like Mr. Babis and Mr. Orban even greater power to set farm policy and oversee spending, despite allegations of corruption. Internal auditors have criticized that proposal, and several lawmakers objected Tuesday.

We cant even adequately police corruption, said Sheila Ritchie of Scotland. What on Earth makes us think self-policing compliance is going to work?

Johannes Hahn, the European budget administrator, defended the blocs approach to corruption and abuse, noting that European auditors have investigated and audited Mr. Babis.

We have reacted very quickly, he said.

But the Babis investigations also reveal how accountability is still limited. Years ago, European investigators recommended that Mr. Babis be charged with fraud, but they lack jurisdiction or authority to bring charges. The case has languished in the Czech Republic. And the audit is expected to drag on for many months, during which time Mr. Babis can still vote on the European budget.

The European Union is not a government but an economic and political bloc. While it has a system of shared laws, the union is built on the concept of national sovereignty.

Those tensions bubbled over on Tuesday, as some lawmakers strongly rejected suggestions that cracking down on corruption required the European Union to take on new oversight.

Some colleagues want the E.U. to have even greater responsibilities and to supervise member states even more, Tomislav Sokol, a Croatian lawmaker, said during the hearing, held in Strasbourg, France. But member states should look after their own interests. Solutions should not be imposed by the European Union.

The clearest divisions, though, were between lawmakers calling for a significant overhaul of the subsidy program and those who argued for keeping it intact.

The story here isnt actually about a few bad apples robbing funds, said Clare Daly, an Irish lawmaker. The problem is actually the system itself.

Such sentiments elicited a rebuke from Clara Aguilera of Spain, who is also a member of the agricultural committee.

There are people who are trying to make these problems into a general condemnation of the C.A.P., she said. I refuse to join in this blanket condemnation.

More here:
E.U. Lawmakers Condemn Subsidy Corruption but Disagree on What to Do - The New York Times