EU Environmental Principles and Scientific Uncertainty before National Courts

Mariolina Eliantonio is Professor of European and Comparative Administrative Law and Procedure at Maastricht University, the Netherlands.Emma Lees is Professor of Transnational Law at the European University Institute, Italy, and Professor of Environmental and Property Law, University of Cambridge, UK.Tiina Paloniitty is Postdoctoral Researcher of Environmental and Sustainability Law at Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki, Finland.

The book is a valuable contribution to the literature, and will form a valuable basis for more academic undertakings.

• IntroductionMariolina Eliantonio (Maastricht University, the Netherlands), Emma Lees (European University Institute, Italy) and Tiina Paloniitty (University of Helsinki, Finland)Part I: Setting the Scene: Courts, Science and the Habitats Directive1. ‘Science’ in Court – The Importance of SpecificityEmma Lees (European University Institute, Italy) and Tiina Paloniitty (University of Helsinki, Finland)2. The European Court of Justice’s Approach to Scientific and Factual Matters in the Habitats Directive – Between Uncertainty and PrecautionAugustin Garcia Ureta (University of the Basque Country, Spain)Part II: Reviewing Science and Law in the Member States’ Courts3. Judicial Review and Enforcement of The Habitats Directive in IrelandÁine Ryall (University College Cork, Ireland)4. The Boundaries of Administrative Judicial Review in Lithuania in Natura 2000 CasesJurgita Paužaite-Kulvinskiene (Vilnius University, Lithuania) and Indre Žvaigždiniene (Vilnius University, Lithuania)5. The Scrutiny of Scientific Evidence by UK Courts in Environmental Decisions: Legality, the Fact-Law Distinction, and (Sometimes) Self-Limiting ReviewCatherine Caine (University of Exeter, UK) and Richard Broadbent (Freeths LLP, UK)6. Judicial Review of the Application of Article 6(3) Habitats Directive: How the Dutch Council of State Integrates Science, Expertise and Scientific UncertaintyFloor Fleurke (Tilburg University, the Netherlands)7. Of Ostensible Self-Restraint, Explicit Environmental Protection, and a Missing Link: the Appropriate Assessment in ItalyRoberto Caranta (Turin University, Italy)8. Legal Approaches to Scientific Uncertainty in Germany - The Case of EU Nature Conservation Law Wolfgang Köck (Helmholz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Germany) and Till Markus (University of Bremen, Germany)9. Reasoning Styles, the Role of Discretionary Judicial Choices and the Limits of Judicial Review: the Hungarian Courts’ Experience with the Habitats and the Bird DirectivesKatalin Sulyok (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)10. The EU Nature Conservation Law in Finnish Judicial Review: Various Avenues, Coalescing Case Law?Tiina Paloniitty (University of Helsinki, Finland) and Hanna Nieminen-Finne (Vaasa Administrative Court, Finland)11. The Intensity of Judicial Review in Environmental Litigation in Greek Law with Special Regard to Habitats SitesKonstantinos Gogos (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece)12. The Weakness of the Judiciary and the Poor Implementation of the Habitats Directive: How Judicial Self-Restraint Endangers Biodiversity Protection in FranceFrançois-Vivien Guiot (University of Pau, France)13. The Habitats Directive in the Romanian Courts: Procedure vs SubstanceDacian Dragos (Babes Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania) and Bogdana Neamtu (Babes Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania)Part III Broadening the View14. Biodiversity in the Court: The Certainty of Contests about UncertaintyBrian J Preston (The New South Wales Land and Environment Court, Australia)15. Scientific Uncertainty before the Court of Justice and the General Court: Is the Judicial Toolbox Sufficient?Mariolina Eliantonio (Maastricht University, the Netherlands) and Michal Krajewski (Maastricht University, the Netherlands)ConclusionsMariolina Eliantonio (Maastricht University, the Netherlands), Emma Lees (European University Institute, Italy) and Tiina Paloniitty (University of Helsinki, Finland)