![]() The limited presence of DEHP in the recyclate may facilitate its processing into new PVC articles by reducing the amount of pure or virgin DEHP or other plasticisers that can be added to the compounds before new flexible PVC articles are produced. The companies had indicated that DEHP did not have a specific functional role for them, and that substance is merely present as a (largely unwanted) impurity in the waste that is collected, sorted, processed and then placed on the market in the form of recyclate. ![]() Since the Habitats Directive prohibits the deliberate capture or killing of the protected species in their natural range, it does not allow human settlements to be excluded from the scope of the protection under that provision, all the more so since the 1979 Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals (Bonn Convention) to which the Union is a party define natural range as ‘all the areas of land or water that a migratory species inhabits, stays in temporarily, crosses or overflies at any time on its normal migration route’.Ĭommission not obliged to revise its decision allowing for use of endocrine disrupter DEHP, says General Court on 4 April 2019 in case T-108/17Īt the request of three waste recycling companies, the European Commission had authorised certain uses of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), an organic compound essentially used to soften polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics. 12 Habitats Directive, stating that the range is greater than the geographical space that contains the essential physical or biological elements for the wolf’s life and reproductions, and therefore corresponds to the geographical space in which the wolf concerned is present or to which it extends in the course of its natural behaviour. The Court interpreted the concept of protection of animals in ‘their natural range’ used in art. A criminal complaint was filed concerning the capture and relocation of the wolf. After being captured, the wolf managed to escape to the nearby forest while being transported. The wolf had been present on the property of a resident of a village situated between two protected habitat sites where it was playing with the owner’s dogs and enjoying the food they got. In this case, a wolf was captured and relocated without prior authorisation of the national authorities. Hence, the capture and relocation of a wolf found in a village can only be justified where they form the subject of a derogation adopted by the national authority. Wolf entering a residential area still falls under the Habitats directive strict protection rulesĭo the strict protection rules regarding wild animals of the Habitats directive also apply in the case where a wolf plays with dogs in a village? In case C-88/19, on 11 June 2020 the CJEU decided that this system indeed also applies to animals that leave their natural habitat and stray into human settlements. For the time being, short summaries of new cases can be found below on this page.nd by searching full text, using case numbers, names of parties, sector etc. ![]() The cases can be found by searching full text, using case numbers, names of parties, sector etc. Once that process is finalised, it will provide you again with the full text and concise summaries of the most relevant decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or ECJ) and the General Court (formerly called Court of First Instance, CFI), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and some national courts. Environmental Case Law Database (under construction) / Case law newsĮnvironmental case law at your fingertips: The database is currently under reconstruction.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |