Provisional Measures Against EU Member States in the light of the Białowieża Forest case
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15290/eejtr.2018.02.01.02Keywords:
European Law, European Commission, provisional measures, Białowieża Forest, rule of law, PolandAbstract
The purpose of the article is to present the specific relationship between the EU, which is a unique international organisation, and its Member States, which are the source of integration and, paradoxically, its natural limit. The article contains an analysis of provisional measures imposed on Poland by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as an example of a judicial and autonomous control mechanism concerning Member States and their obligations under EU law. Case European Commission v. Poland (2017) serves as a central element of the considerations. On 27 July 2017, the CJEU imposed a temporary injunction against logging in the Polish Bialowieza Forest, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and the last old-growth forest in Europe, while the case is being tried with the final Court decision expected in December 2017. Nevertheless, the Polish minister of the environment said on 31 July that the Polish government will ignore the ruling and that the logging will continue in tune with the “protective measures” for the forest, since the Bialowieza Forest seems to be under attack from the Spruce Bark Beetle. This species of beetle is a pest which colonises primarily spruce trees (Ips typographus for the lovers of the Latin language). The assumption made in the article is that provisional measures (applied under EU procedural law) have dogmatic roots in the tradition of civil proceedings in Member States. What is involved here are national procedures aimed at securing a claim in certain circumstances which establish a prima facie case on the inefficiency of the future decision. The specificity of provisional measures results from the specificity of EU law, which, in order to be effective, requires a judicial review. Provisional measures are one of the tools to guarantee its effectiveness. Despite relatively strict conditions for the applicability of provisional measures by the CJEU, they can help ensure effectiveness of UE law. The measures imposed to stop the destruction of the Białowieża Forest can be an example here.
Downloads
References
Annexes to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: A new EU Framework to Strengthen the Rule of Law, Annex I: The Rule of law as a foundational principle of the Union (Brussels, 11.3.2014, COM(2014) 158, final.
Azoulai, L. “Integration through law” and us. (2016). International Journal of Constitutional Law, 14(2), 449–463.
Belgium v. European Commission, T131/16 (19 July 2016), EU:T:2016:427.
Cambridge Healthcare Supplies v. European Commission T-137/00 R (31 October 2000).
Comité Central d’Entreprise de la SA Vittel and Comité d’Etablissement de Pierval v. European Commission, T-12/93 R (6 July 1993).
Comité Central d’Entreprise de la Société Générale des Grandes Sources and others v. European Commission, T-96/92 R (15 December 1992).
Commission Regulation (EU) No 312/2014 of 26 March 2014 establishing a Network Code on Gas Balancing of Transmission Networks (BAL NC).
Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012).
Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Rome (4 November 1950). Retrieved from: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf.
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as most recently amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158).
Czachór, Z. (2013). Kryzys i zburzona dynamika Unii Europejskiej [Crisis and disturbed dynamics of the European Union]. Warszawa: Dom Wydawniczy i Handlowy ELIPSA.
Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20).
Euroalliages v. European Commission, T-132/01 (8 July 2003).
European Commission acts to defend judicial independence in Poland. (n.d.) Retrieved from: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-5367_en.htm.
European Commission v. Poland C-441/17. (2017). ECLI:EU:C:2017:877.
Evonik Degussa v. European Commission, C162/15 PR (2 March 2016). EU:C:2016:142
Grzeszczak, R. & Karolewski, I.P. (2017). Bialowieza Forest, the Spruce Bark Beetle and the EU Law Controversy in Poland. Retrieved from: http://verfassungsblog.de/bialowieza-forest-the-spruce-bark-beetle-and-the-eu-law-controversy-in-poland/
Habermas, J. (2005). Faktyczność i obowiązywanie. Teoria dyskursu wobec zagadnień prawa i demokratycznego państwa prawnego [Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
Hänseler GmbH v. European Commission, T-83/00 R, (31 October 2000).
Hans-Martin Tillack v. European Commission, T-193/04 (4 October 2006).
Iżykowski, M. (1985). Przesłanki zabezpieczenia powództwa. Palestra, 29/11(335).
Jack Hanning v. European Parliament, C 176/88 R (11 July 1988).
Jakubecki, A. (2017). Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz aktualizowany. Tom II [Code of Civil Procedure. Comment updated. Vol. II]. Warszawa: C. H. Beck.
Kingdom of Belgium v. European Commission, C-142/87 R (15 June 1987).
Kmieciak, Z. (2010). Postępowanie administracyjne i sądowoadministracyjne a prawo europejskie. Wolters Kluwer.
Lambert and others v. France. 2015, June 5. European Court of Human Rights, No 46043/14.
Lenaerts, K., Arts, D., Maselis, I & Bray, R. (2006). Procedural Law of the European Union. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
Poland approves large-scale logging in Europe’s last primeval forest (2016, March 26). The Guardian. Agence France-Presse. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/26/poland-approves-large-scale-logging-in-europes-last-primevalforest.
Poland v. European Commission, T883/16 R (21 July 2017). ECLI:EU:T:174.
Rosas, A. & Arnati L. (eds.). (2012). EU Constitutional Law. An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Satya Prakash v. Commission of the EAEC, C-65-63 R (25 June 1965).
Shapiro, M. (1980). Comparative Law and Comparative Politics. Southern California Law Review, 53(2), 537-542.
Shaw, J., More, G. (1995). New Legal Dynamics of European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sofrimport SARL v. European Communities, C-152/88 (10 June 1988).
Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, provided for in article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (Journal of Laws of 1923, no 106, item 839).
Statute of the International Court of Justice. Retrieved from: http://www.icj-cij.org/en/statute.
The Act of 17 November 1964 – Code of Civil Procedure (Journal of Laws of 2018, item. 155, as amended).
UNESCO Word Heritage Centre, Outstanding Universal Value, 02.04.2018 Retrieved from: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/33
Weatherill, S. (1995). Law and Integration in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weiler, J.H.H. (1991). The Transformation of Europe. The Yale Law Journal, 100(8), 2403-2483.
WHC.17/41.COM/18 Decisions adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 41st session (Cracow, Poland).
Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego [Judgment of the Supreme Court], No. V CZ 105/12. (2013, April 17).
Żurek, K. (2000). Środki tymczasowe jako przejaw funkcjonowania efektywnej ochrony prawnej w systemie prawnym Unii Europejskiej. In. Biernat, S. (Ed.), Studia z prawa Unii Europejskiej. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Robert Grzeszczak, Mateusz Muchel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1. The Author declares that he or she has created the written work and holds exclusive and unlimited copyright /both moral and property rights/ and guarantees that no third parties have rights to the work.
2. In the view of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, a work must fulfill the following criterion:
a) be a manifestation of creative work,
b) have an individual character („author’s personal stamp”),
c) have a set form.
3. The Author declares that the text has not been previously published (under the same or different title, or as a part of another publication).
4. The Author allows (grants a non-exclusive license) the publishing house of University of Białystok to use the scholarly text to:
- preserve and multiply by means of any technique; save in a digital form with no limitations as to the manner and form of digital preservation;
- upload online with no limitations as to the place and time of access.
5. The Author grants consent for editorial changes made in the work.
6. The Author grants the University of Białystok rights free of charge for the duration of property copyright with no territory limits. The University has the right to grant sublicenses in the acquired rights.
7. Granting a non-exclusive license allows the Author to preserve their rights and allows other parties to make use of the work according to sublicensing agreement with provisions identical as those of Attribution 4.0 Internacional License (CC BY 4.0), available online at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. License to all its content published from 2023 and CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 to all its content published from 2017 to 2022.
8. The Agreement has been concluded for an indefinite period of time.
9. Because of costs born in preparation of the work for publishing, the Parties oblige themselves to act in good faith and refrain from declining to grant licenses.
10. To all matters not settled herein, provisions of the Civil Code and Copyright and Related Rights Act of 1994, February 4 shall apply.
11. All disputes shall be resolved by a court of local jurisdiction for the place of seat of University of Białystok.
