{"id":3419,"date":"2025-10-07T11:05:41","date_gmt":"2025-10-07T09:05:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/?p=3419"},"modified":"2025-10-07T11:14:13","modified_gmt":"2025-10-07T09:14:13","slug":"two-courts-two-paths-comparing-europes-environmental-jurisprudence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/fr\/two-courts-two-paths-comparing-europes-environmental-jurisprudence\/","title":{"rendered":"Two Courts, Two Paths: Comparing Europe\u2019s Environmental Jurisprudence"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>How do the <strong>European Court of Human Rights<\/strong> and the <strong>Court of Justice of the European Union<\/strong> go about <strong>protecting the environment<\/strong>? What common features do they share, and what sets them apart? Are their rulings and approaches in conflict, or do they complement each other?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>These were the questions I addressed in a presentation given at the conference organised by the Academy of European Law (ERA) on <em>\u201c<strong>Recent Judgments on Fundamental Rights and Environmental Protection<\/strong>\u201d<\/em> (online, 23\u201324 September 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The analysis focused on a concrete example: the severe air pollution caused by the <strong>Ilva steelworks<\/strong> in Taranto (Italy), the largest industrial steelworks in Europe. Since both European Courts recently dealt with this issue\u2014<em><strong>Cordella and Others v. Italy<\/strong><\/em> (54414\/13) before the ECtHR and <em><strong>Ilva and Others<\/strong><\/em> (C-626\/22) before the CJEU\u2014this case-law provided an excellent opportunity to compare the Strasbourg and Luxembourg approaches to environmental pollution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The comparison shows that the approaches of the two European Courts differ considerably in terms of their <strong>legal basis, scope, methodology and impact<\/strong>. While the Strasbourg approach, based on fundamental rights, is <strong>more general and comprehensive<\/strong>, the Luxembourg approach, mainly based on secondary legislation, is <strong>more specific and detailed<\/strong>. However, these two approaches <strong>complement each other<\/strong>. Their <strong>mutually reinforcing effect<\/strong> even seems indispensable when addressing complex situations such as those arising from the Ilva case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The details of the comparison can be found in the enclosed PowerPoint presentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-interactive=\"core\/file\" class=\"wp-block-file\"><object data-wp-bind--hidden=\"!state.hasPdfPreview\" hidden class=\"wp-block-file__embed\" data=\"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Comparing-Ilva-CJEU-with-Cordella-ECtHR.pdf\" type=\"application\/pdf\" style=\"width:100%;height:600px\" aria-label=\"Embed of Comparing Ilva (CJEU) with Cordella (ECtHR).\"><\/object><a id=\"wp-block-file--media-66c8b224-e361-47ed-b161-19a26bf4d34c\" href=\"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Comparing-Ilva-CJEU-with-Cordella-ECtHR.pdf\">Comparing Ilva (CJEU) with Cordella (ECtHR)<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Comparing-Ilva-CJEU-with-Cordella-ECtHR.pdf\" class=\"wp-block-file__button wp-element-button\" download aria-describedby=\"wp-block-file--media-66c8b224-e361-47ed-b161-19a26bf4d34c\">Download PDF<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>On this topic, see also <em><a href=\"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/environmental-pollution-caused-by-the-ilva-steelworks-judgment-of-the-cjeu-in-ilva-and-others-compared-with-cordella-and-others-v-italy\/\">Environmental pollution caused by the Ilva steelworks<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>How do the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union go about protecting the environment? What common features do they share, and what sets them apart? Are their rulings and approaches in conflict, or do they complement each other? These were the questions I addressed in a presentation [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,22,27,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3419","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-of-justice-of-the-eu","category-european-court-of-human-rights","category-new-publications","category-recent-case-law"],"translation":{"provider":"WPGlobus","version":"3.0.2","language":"fr","enabled_languages":["en","de","fr"],"languages":{"en":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"de":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"fr":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false}}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3419","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3419"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3419\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3426,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3419\/revisions\/3426"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3419"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3419"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3419"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}