Vinsamlegast notið þetta auðkenni þegar þið vitnið til verksins eða tengið í það: http://hdl.handle.net/1946/32007
Public participation and access to justice are key elements in this thesis. These elements can be found in the Aarhus Convention, along with the right to environmental information. The aim of the Convention is to ensure that a transparent legal framework is established with the intent to protect the environment. The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) is the body of the Convention that considers whether the Contracted Parties have correctly implemented the provisions. The ACCC is mainly concerned with the communications that the public can send to it: it is on the basis of these communications that the Committee makes recommendations in the form of issuing a report. This research focuses on the reports of the ACCC regarding both public participation and access to justice. These analyses provide insight into the ACCC’s view on the most desirable methods of implementation of the public participation and access to justice provisions of the Convention. In addition, these elements are considered with a particular focus on the compliance situation of the Netherlands.
Conducting the research has created results from which the following conclusions can be drawn. Article 6 gives the public the opportunity to participate in a decision-making procedure of an activity that is potentially harmful to the environment. In its reports, the ACCC mainly considers the importance of a correct implementation of the public participation conditions to ensure the effectiveness of the Article. The effectiveness is subject to different elements that are mentioned in the text of Article 6, but the ACCC also stresses the importance of the size, impact and complexity of a proposed project. The importance of effectiveness is also emphasized by the ACCC when it expresses its opinion on the correct implementation of Article 9(2). Article 9(2) creates the ability to challenge Article 6 decisions specifically. The ACCC noted that it is especially important that the public concerned has the means to appeal against Article 6 decision. The expectation was that an incorrect implementation of Article 6 would also immediately cause an incorrect implementation of Article 9(2). However, this research has not been able to prove this, nor can it refute it, because the question has not yet been dealt with by the ACCC. The advice for follow-up research is to examine whether new reports from the ACCC do provide an answer to this. In addition, it is recommended to carry out a similar investigation that establishes whether the opinion of scholars is different from that of the ACCC. Since this research is aimed at only giving its opinion on the correct implementation of the Aarhus public participation and access to justice provisions.