Advanced

En vargtimme för svensk rätt - Om europarättslig påverkan på miljöorganisationers klagorätt och rätt till domstolsprövning av beslut om licensjakt efter varg

Hansson, Malin LU (2016) JURM02 20161
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Vargen som art är strikt skyddad i enlighet med EU-rättsliga direktiv. Undantag från skyddet medges endast under vissa specifika förutsättningar. Möjlighet att få prövat i domstol om dessa förutsättningar varit uppfyllda när ett licensjaktbeslut fattats saknades i svensk rätt fram till så sent som den 1 april i år (2016), eftersom det fanns ett överklagandeförbud i jaktförordningen. I stället utgjorde Naturvårdsverket sista instans. Efter att Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen i december 2015 slagit fast att den svenska ordningen inte var förenlig med EU-rättsliga krav togs överklagandeförbudet bort. Beslut om licensjakt överklagas numera till allmän förvaltningsrätt.

I uppsatsen undersöks dels miljöorganisationers klagorätt som en... (More)
Vargen som art är strikt skyddad i enlighet med EU-rättsliga direktiv. Undantag från skyddet medges endast under vissa specifika förutsättningar. Möjlighet att få prövat i domstol om dessa förutsättningar varit uppfyllda när ett licensjaktbeslut fattats saknades i svensk rätt fram till så sent som den 1 april i år (2016), eftersom det fanns ett överklagandeförbud i jaktförordningen. I stället utgjorde Naturvårdsverket sista instans. Efter att Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen i december 2015 slagit fast att den svenska ordningen inte var förenlig med EU-rättsliga krav togs överklagandeförbudet bort. Beslut om licensjakt överklagas numera till allmän förvaltningsrätt.

I uppsatsen undersöks dels miljöorganisationers klagorätt som en förutsättning för tillgång till överprövning, dels rätten till domstolsprövning med särskilt fokus på europarättsliga krav eftersom dessa legat till grund för beslutet att ändra regleringen i jaktförordningen. Syftet är att undersöka miljöorganisationers rätt att överklaga beslut om licensjakt efter varg till förvaltningsdomstol. Av naturliga skäl kan en stor del av det som tas upp även tillämpas i en diskussion om europarättens påverkan på miljöorganisationers ställning vid beslut som rör andra områden än licensjakt.

Uppsatsen påvisar att miljöorganisationer under relativt lång tid saknat klagorätt i svensk rätt men att detta förändrats till följd av europarätten. Särskilt har Århuskonventionen och EU-domstolens tolkning av dess innehåll haft stor betydelse för utvecklingen mot ett erkännande av miljöorganisationer som beskyddare av allmänna intressen. Svenska domstolar har till följd av konventionen gjort extensiva tolkningar av 22 § förvaltningslagen, vilket är det lagrum som tillämpas för att avgöra vem som har rätt att överklaga ett beslut om licensjakt.

Uppsatsen uppmärksammar vidare att frågan om domstolsprövning av beslut om licensjakt efter varg kompliceras av att Århuskonventionen – vilken både Sverige och EU ratificerat – och EU uppställer olika krav på hur och i vilket organ en överprövning ska ske för att vara tillräcklig. Århuskonventionen medger uttryckligen överprövning i administrativ ordning medan EU-domstolen har uttalat att varje anspråk med EU-rättslig grund måste kunna prövas i nationell domstol för att säkerställa EU-rättens effektiva eller ändamålsenliga verkan i medlemsstaterna.

Det avgörande blir därför till sist vilka krav som ställs på ett organ för att det ska kunna betraktas som en domstol i EU-rättslig mening. För svensk del handlar en sådan diskussion om Naturvårdsverkets vara eller icke-vara som domstol, något som inte berördes av Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen i beslutet från 2015 och som endast en prövning i EU-domstolen skulle kunna ge ett säkert svar på. Oaktat Naturvårdsverkets ställning konstateras det att Sverige genom ändringen i jaktförordningen i april 2016 bör uppfylla såväl Århuskonventionens som EU-rättsliga krav. Möjligen har man till och med gått ett steg längre än vad som krävts. (Less)
Abstract
The wolf is as a species strictly protected by directives from the EU. Exceptions from the protection are only admitted in accordance with certain specific conditions. Up until the 1st of April 2016 the Swedish Hunting Regulation contained a ban on appeals, meaning that the question of whether the conditions for licensed hunting for wolves were fulfilled or not, could not be reviewed by a court. Instead an appeal could be made to the Swedish environmental protection agency (SEPA) that also constituted the final instance of review. After Sweden’s Supreme Administrative Court in December of 2015 concluded that the Swedish regulation was not consistent with EU law, the ban of appeals was abolished. Decisions on licensed hunting are since... (More)
The wolf is as a species strictly protected by directives from the EU. Exceptions from the protection are only admitted in accordance with certain specific conditions. Up until the 1st of April 2016 the Swedish Hunting Regulation contained a ban on appeals, meaning that the question of whether the conditions for licensed hunting for wolves were fulfilled or not, could not be reviewed by a court. Instead an appeal could be made to the Swedish environmental protection agency (SEPA) that also constituted the final instance of review. After Sweden’s Supreme Administrative Court in December of 2015 concluded that the Swedish regulation was not consistent with EU law, the ban of appeals was abolished. Decisions on licensed hunting are since April appealed to administrative court.

In this essay the standing of environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) as well as the rights to effective judicial protection and judicial review before a court are examined. Since it is European demands that have brought about the change in the Swedish Hunting regulation, those are specifically looked at. The purpose is to determine ENGOs right to appeal decisions on licensed hunting after wolves to administrative courts. A big part of what is discussed is also applicable in a broader context regarding European law’s influence on ENGOs standing.

The results show that ENGOs during a long time had no standing in Swedish law, something that European law has come to change. Especially the Aarhus Convention and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) interpretations of the Convention have had a major impact on the development towards recognition of ENGOs as a protector of common interests. Swedish courts have as a result of international law been forced to interpret 22 § of the Administrative law, which in cases of licensed hunting is the applicable law section for determining if someone has standing, extensively.

Furthermore the essay pays attention to the fact that the question of a right to judicial review of decisions concerning licensed hunting is complicated because the Aarhus Convention – that both Sweden and the EU have ratified – and the EU itself has somewhat different demands about how and in what institution a judicial review should take place to be sufficient. The Aarhus Convention expressly mentions administrative appeal as a sufficient remedy. The CJEU on the other hand has stated that every demand made on a European legal basis has to be able to be reviewed in national court to ensure the effectiveness of EU law in the Member States.

It is concluded that the essential question of the matter is what it takes for an institution to be regarded as a court in the sense of EU law. For Sweden such a discussion concerns the SEPA’s role or non-role as a court. The question wasn’t mentioned in the decision from the Supreme Administrative Court and it would require a review in the CJEU to get a certain answer. Regardless of the SEPA’s status it is established that Sweden, since the abolishment of the ban on appeals, should meet both the demands of the Aarhus Convention and those of EU law. It may even be possible that Sweden has gone one step further than needed. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hansson, Malin LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
A wolf's hour in Swedish law - European influence on the standing of ENGOs and the right to judicial review by court of decisions regarding licensed hunting of wolves
course
JURM02 20161
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Förvaltningsrätt, EU-rätt, klagorätt, rätt till domstolsprövning, överklagandeförbud, licensjakt, varg, miljöorganisationer
language
Swedish
id
8875049
date added to LUP
2016-06-14 10:37:26
date last changed
2016-06-14 10:37:26
@misc{8875049,
  abstract     = {The wolf is as a species strictly protected by directives from the EU. Exceptions from the protection are only admitted in accordance with certain specific conditions. Up until the 1st of April 2016 the Swedish Hunting Regulation contained a ban on appeals, meaning that the question of whether the conditions for licensed hunting for wolves were fulfilled or not, could not be reviewed by a court. Instead an appeal could be made to the Swedish environmental protection agency (SEPA) that also constituted the final instance of review. After Sweden’s Supreme Administrative Court in December of 2015 concluded that the Swedish regulation was not consistent with EU law, the ban of appeals was abolished. Decisions on licensed hunting are since April appealed to administrative court. 

In this essay the standing of environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) as well as the rights to effective judicial protection and judicial review before a court are examined. Since it is European demands that have brought about the change in the Swedish Hunting regulation, those are specifically looked at. The purpose is to determine ENGOs right to appeal decisions on licensed hunting after wolves to administrative courts. A big part of what is discussed is also applicable in a broader context regarding European law’s influence on ENGOs standing.

The results show that ENGOs during a long time had no standing in Swedish law, something that European law has come to change. Especially the Aarhus Convention and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) interpretations of the Convention have had a major impact on the development towards recognition of ENGOs as a protector of common interests. Swedish courts have as a result of international law been forced to interpret 22 § of the Administrative law, which in cases of licensed hunting is the applicable law section for determining if someone has standing, extensively.

Furthermore the essay pays attention to the fact that the question of a right to judicial review of decisions concerning licensed hunting is complicated because the Aarhus Convention – that both Sweden and the EU have ratified – and the EU itself has somewhat different demands about how and in what institution a judicial review should take place to be sufficient. The Aarhus Convention expressly mentions administrative appeal as a sufficient remedy. The CJEU on the other hand has stated that every demand made on a European legal basis has to be able to be reviewed in national court to ensure the effectiveness of EU law in the Member States. 

It is concluded that the essential question of the matter is what it takes for an institution to be regarded as a court in the sense of EU law. For Sweden such a discussion concerns the SEPA’s role or non-role as a court. The question wasn’t mentioned in the decision from the Supreme Administrative Court and it would require a review in the CJEU to get a certain answer. Regardless of the SEPA’s status it is established that Sweden, since the abolishment of the ban on appeals, should meet both the demands of the Aarhus Convention and those of EU law. It may even be possible that Sweden has gone one step further than needed.},
  author       = {Hansson, Malin},
  keyword      = {Förvaltningsrätt,EU-rätt,klagorätt,rätt till domstolsprövning,överklagandeförbud,licensjakt,varg,miljöorganisationer},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {En vargtimme för svensk rätt - Om europarättslig påverkan på miljöorganisationers klagorätt och rätt till domstolsprövning av beslut om licensjakt efter varg},
  year         = {2016},
}