Suchergebnisse

The Arhus Convention was ratified by the European Union on the 25th of June 1998 and approved by the Council Decision of 17 February 2005. The Convention regulates three main issues: the access to information concerning the environment; the public participation in decision-making and the access to justice in environmental matters. The European Union in pursue of ensuring adequate implementation and protection of "the right to environment" in the scope of general human rights protection has adopted two directives in order to implement the provisions of the Arhus Convention: 1) Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC; 2) Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/ECC and 96/61/EC. The article reviews the process which the European Union is currently undergoing for the purpose of adequate implementation of the Arhus Convention and examines legal measures employed by the European Union in pursue of adequate and effective implementation of provisions set by the Arhus Convention in the law of the European Union as well as in the Member States domestic legislation.

The Arhus Convention was ratified by the European Union on the 25th of June 1998 and approved by the Council Decision of 17 February 2005. The Convention regulates three main issues: the access to information concerning the environment; the public participation in decision-making and the access to justice in environmental matters. The European Union in pursue of ensuring adequate implementation and protection of "the right to environment" in the scope of general human rights protection has adopted two directives in order to implement the provisions of the Arhus Convention: 1) Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC; 2) Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/ECC and 96/61/EC. The article reviews the process which the European Union is currently undergoing for the purpose of adequate implementation of the Arhus Convention and examines legal measures employed by the European Union in pursue of adequate and effective implementation of provisions set by the Arhus Convention in the law of the European Union as well as in the Member States domestic legislation.

The Arhus Convention was ratified by the European Union on the 25th of June 1998 and approved by the Council Decision of 17 February 2005. The Convention regulates three main issues: the access to information concerning the environment; the public participation in decision-making and the access to justice in environmental matters. The European Union in pursue of ensuring adequate implementation and protection of "the right to environment" in the scope of general human rights protection has adopted two directives in order to implement the provisions of the Arhus Convention: 1) Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC; 2) Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/ECC and 96/61/EC. The article reviews the process which the European Union is currently undergoing for the purpose of adequate implementation of the Arhus Convention and examines legal measures employed by the European Union in pursue of adequate and effective implementation of provisions set by the Arhus Convention in the law of the European Union as well as in the Member States domestic legislation.

The Arhus Convention was ratified by the European Union on the 25th of June 1998 and approved by the Council Decision of 17 February 2005. The Convention regulates three main issues: the access to information concerning the environment; the public participation in decision-making and the access to justice in environmental matters. The European Union in pursue of ensuring adequate implementation and protection of "the right to environment" in the scope of general human rights protection has adopted two directives in order to implement the provisions of the Arhus Convention: 1) Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC; 2) Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/ECC and 96/61/EC. The article reviews the process which the European Union is currently undergoing for the purpose of adequate implementation of the Arhus Convention and examines legal measures employed by the European Union in pursue of adequate and effective implementation of provisions set by the Arhus Convention in the law of the European Union as well as in the Member States domestic legislation.

Šiame straipsnyje1 analizuojama atnaujinta Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo procedūros reglamento redakcija (įsigaliojusi 2012 m. lapkričio 1 d.) ir vertinami svarbiausi pakeitimai bei jų turinys. Straipsnyje identifikuojami tikslai, kurių buvo siekiama šiais pakeitimais, ir tiriamas galimas jų poveikis tiek Teisingumo Teisme vykstančių procesų eigai, tiek Teisingumo Teismo nagrinėjamų bylų šalių teisėms ar pareigoms. The article analyses and evaluates the revised Rules of Procedure of the European Union Court of Justice, which entered into force on 1 November 2012. The authors introduce the reader to the main changes made by the revised version, discuss the objectives of such amendments and evaluate their possible effects to the work of the Court as well as rights and duties of the parties before the Court.

This comparative study looks into the proposed "vaccine passport" initiative from various human rights aspects. It was undertaken by the Global Digital Human Rights Network, an action started under the EU's Cooperation in Science and Technology programme. The network currently unites more than 80 scholars and practitioners from 40 countries. The findings are based on responses to questions put to the network members by the authors of this study in February 2021 (questions attached in Annex I). We acknowledge individual contributions from colleagues (listed in the table of contributors above), whose views are sometimes presented in a generalised fashion. The study concentrated on the availability of a legal framework for the proposed "vaccine passport", whether such a "passport" would create binding obligations in the public and private sectors or, alternatively, what would be the scope of discretion allowed to public and private entities to make their decisions affecting rights holders' access to various services. The attitudes prevalent in different states and in the media were also analysed, along with the aspects that need to be considered to avoid potential human rights violations. There has been no thorough analysis in most countries as to whether a normative national basis exists to restrict fundamental rights through the requirement of having a "vaccine passport" to access certain locations or services. Compatibility of the proposed passport with European and/or international human rights rules and principles is a marginal issue in public discourse. Conceptualisation about such compatibility remains general and theoretical, and has not reached the level of practicality and effectiveness. Most countries have not enacted concrete legislative acts or provisions to deal with a pandemic of this scale and magnitude. [Excerpt from Introduction and Synopsis] ; peer-reviewed