de flag go to the original language article
This article has been translated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). The news agency is not responsible for the content of the translated article. The original was published by APA.

EU rewilding – ECJ lawsuit futile for experts

by AI | 19.Jun 2024 | Europe in brief AI

After Austria’s Environment Minister Leonore Gewessler (Greens) approved the renaturation law at the EU level against the will of her coalition partner ÖVP, the ÖVP now wants to overturn the EU law with a nullity suit before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). However, European law expert Peter Hilpold sees little chance of success for this endeavor.

Archive image - European law expert clearly saw a "legally valid enactment" of the law, although Gewessler acted in a "grey area." Photo: Arne Immanuel Bänsch/dpa

Brussels/Vienna/EU-wide – The European law expert Peter Hilpold gave little chance to the nullity action announced by the Austrian governing party ÖVP before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) due to the approval of Austria’s Environment Minister Leonore Gewessler (Greens) for the EU Renaturation Act in an APA discussion on Tuesday. He clearly saw the law as “legally valid,” although Gewessler had acted in a “grey area.” For him it was clear that “the election campaign has been carried to Brussels.”

The EU expert teaching at the University of Innsbruck said that in this case – due to the lack of precedents in European law – one must refer to general international law. And this clearly states that the other representatives of the EU states had to assume and trust that Gewessler, as the competent minister, was also authorized to make decisions. “If the representation authority of state representatives could be constantly questioned on call, because there are different opinions about national decision-making procedures in advance, international decision-making processes would come to a complete standstill,” he clarified his view. The letter from Chancellor Karl Nehammer (ÖVP) to the Belgian presidency, in which the chancellor had declared Gewessler’s incompetence, did not change anything for Hilpold: “The chancellor does not have directive authority over his ministers,” he also saw a significance at EU level.

If the ECJ, contrary to his expectations, – other EU legal scholars were of a different opinion here – were to allow the nullity action and come to the conclusion that the decision had been made unlawfully, “then the law would be repealed. But one could already now apply as a provisional measure that the law cannot come into force.” However, he did not expect a decision from the EU court on dismissal or admission for another year and a half – that is, after the law comes into force. This must be published in the Official Journal within ten days. Then the nullity action could be filed within a two-month period.

Overall, the European law expert wished for a somewhat more moderate tone and a more objective approach to legal issues. Questions about national procedural routes should, as is customary EU-wide, be clarified nationally in principle and not carried to Brussels, otherwise Austria’s reputation would suffer. (18.06.2024)