Environmental Justice in Times of Emergency: Democratic Constraints in Case T-535/23 CEE Bankwatch Network and Ökobüro v Council

This case note focuses on the General Court’s judgment in T-535/23 CEE Bankwatch Network and Ökobüro v Council, which concerns a request for internal review made by environmental NGOs under the Aarhus Regulation. The request was filed with respect to the EU Emergency Regulation, adopted in December 2022 to accelerate renewable energy deployment. In this case, the Court discussed the distinction between “administrative acts” and “legislative acts,” in an attempt to finetune the scope of the internal review mechanism. In doing so, the Court ultimately excluded emergency measures adopted under Article 122(1) TFEU, such as the Emergency Regulation, from internal review. This case note therefore illustrates the tensions between emergency governance and environmental procedural rights, as it argues that the Court may have created an “Aarhus-free zone” for emergency measures. Moreover, this case note explores the broader implications of the judgment for access to justice in environmental matters in the EU.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Risk Regulation
Published
2026-08-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.48548/pubdata-4190
Primary Topic
Environmental law and policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Environmental Justice in Times of Emergency: Democratic Constraints in Case T-535/23 CEE Bankwatch Network and Ökobüro v Council

Justine Richelle, Alice Bertram
European Journal of Risk Regulation
Environmental law and policy
article

Environmental Justice in Times of Emergency: Democratic Constraints in Case T-535/23 CEE Bankwatch Network and Ökobüro v Council

Justine Richelle, Alice Bertram
article en

Abstract

This case note focuses on the General Court’s judgment in T-535/23 CEE Bankwatch Network and Ökobüro v Council, which concerns a request for internal review made by environmental NGOs under the Aarhus Regulation. The request was filed with respect to the EU Emergency Regulation, adopted in December 2022 to accelerate renewable energy deployment. In this case, the Court discussed the distinction between “administrative acts” and “legislative acts,” in an attempt to finetune the scope of the internal review mechanism. In doing so, the Court ultimately excluded emergency measures adopted under Article 122(1) TFEU, such as the Emergency Regulation, from internal review. This case note therefore illustrates the tensions between emergency governance and environmental procedural rights, as it argues that the Court may have created an “Aarhus-free zone” for emergency measures. Moreover, this case note explores the broader implications of the judgment for access to justice in environmental matters in the EU.

European Journal of Risk Regulation
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Environmental law and policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Environmental Justice in Times of Emergency: Democratic Constraints in Case T-535/23 CEE Bankwatch Network and Ökobüro v Council — Justine Richelle, Alice Bertram · European Journal of Risk Regulation (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS