European Commission v. Kingdom of Spain
European Commission v. Kingdom of Spain, ECJ C-404/09 (2011) (European Court of Justice)
November 24, 2011
European Commission v. Kingdom of Spain, ECJ C-404/09 (2011) (European Court of Justice)
November 24, 2011
A mining company (Mina Invierno) proposed a project to incorporate blasting methods at an existing permitted open pit coal mine in southern Chile. Citizens and civil society organizations properly presented petitions for the provision of citizen participation procedures during the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process required for this proposed complementary project, but those petitions were denied. The denial of those petitions was unsuccessfully appealed at the administrative level and the proposed project to incorporate blasting was approved, so a constitutional lawsuit (re
Persons who claimed to have contracted pneumoconiosis due to having worked in dusty coal mines in the Chikuho region or their successors brought this case to seek damages from the government under Article 1, para.
REsp 647.493/SC [MPF v. Brazil and mining companies] (22 May 2007):
Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Inc v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Warkworth Mining Limited [2013] NSWLEC 48:
Ironstone Community Action Group Inc v. NSW Minister for Planning and Duralie Coal Pty Ltd (2011) NSWLEC 195 (10 November 2011)
This was an appeal brought by a third party objector (ICAG) against the Minister of Planning’s decision to approve the extension of an existing coal mine. The objections raised in this appeal focused on the impacts of the coal mine extension on biodiversity (especially the threatened Giant Barred Frog), water quality impacts, health impacts from particulate matter, noise pollution, and dust emissions.
Environmental groups challenged an amendment to the provisions of a local planning scheme that was necessary for the expansion of the Hazelwood coal mine in southeastern Australia. The petitioners claimed that the environment effects statement (EES) should have included analysis of the impacts of carbon emissions when the coal is later burned.
Gray v. Minister for Planning, 40870 of 2006 (2006.11.27) (Land and Environment Court of New South Wales) (Judgment)
Petitioner Peter Gray challenged a decision by the Director-General of the Director of Planning that the EIA prepared by the proponent of the proposed Anvil Mine was adequate. Gray asserted among other things that the EIA should have considered the impact to the climate of burning the mined coal at a coal-fired power plant.
Judge Pain’s decision in this case presents an eloquent defense of considering this impact: “I consider there is a sufficiently proximate link between the mining of a very substantial reserve of thermal coal in NSW, the only purpose of which is for use as fuel in power stations, and the emission of GHG which contribute to climate change/global warming, which is impacting now and likely to continue to do so on the Australian and consequently NSW environment, to require assessment of that GHG contribution of the coal when burnt in an environmental assessment…”
“Environmental assessment is intended to enable decision makers to be properly informed about the future environmental consequences of the project before them. The environmental assessment is a prediction of what the impacts might be given that the project is yet to be built. It is not appropriate to limit the scope of the environmental assessment on the basis that GHG emissions may or may not be subject to regulation in the future whether in NSW or overseas. The fact that it is difficult to quantify an impact with precision does not mean it should not be done.”
