Edwards and Pallikaropoulos v Environment Agency
The requirement that environmental litigation should not be prohibitively expensive means that the cost must not exceed the financial resources of the claimant nor appear objectively unreasonable.
Facts
Mr Edwards challenged the grant of a permit for a cement works to burn waste tyres, and his appeal was dismissed by the House of Lords. Ms Pallikaropoulos, who had taken over the appeal, was ordered to pay the costs of the respondents. The question arose whether the costs order was consistent with the requirement in the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Aarhus Convention that judicial procedures in environmental matters should not be prohibitively expensive. The Supreme Court referred questions to the Court of Justice.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the requirement that proceedings should not be prohibitively expensive means that the persons concerned should not be prevented from seeking a review by the courts by reason of the financial burden that might arise. The national court must take into account both the subjective situation of the claimant, including its financial resources, and an objective analysis of the amount of the costs, which must not appear objectively unreasonable. The court could also take into account whether the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success, the importance of what was at stake for the claimant and for the protection of the environment, and the complexity of the law and procedure.
Related cases on public participation, information and access to justice
- Austin v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1012, [2015] 1 WLR 62
- Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland v Bezirksregierung Arnsberg (Trianel) Case C-115/09, [2011] ECR I-3673
- Commission v United Kingdom (Costs in environmental cases) Case C-530/11, EU:C:2014:67
- Fish Legal v Information Commissioner Case C-279/12, EU:C:2013:853
- Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Brown Bears) Case C-240/09, [2011] ECR I-1255
- Morgan v Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 107
- Office of Communications v Information Commissioner Case C-71/10, [2011] ECR I-7205
- R (Edwards) v Environment Agency (No 2) [2013] UKSC 78, [2014] 1 WLR 55
Studying environmental law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
