Environmental disputes rarely happen on a level playing field. Witnesses to environmental destruction, communities impacted by major projects, NGOs seeking to enforce environmental law often face the same recurring barriers: unclear procedures, prohibitive costs, uncertainty about who can sue, and delays that make legal protection largely meaningless. That is why the latest European Commission’s Notice on access to justice in environmental matters (C/2026/4950), published on 24 July 2026, matters. It frames access to review as a structural condition for the effectiveness of environmental protection, linking judicial accountability to the real-world prevention of harm.
A recurring problem across environmental disputes is that substantive standards can become legally ineffective when the enforcement pathway is difficult to trigger, expensive to maintain, or slow to resolve. The Notice highlights this by treating “access to justice” as a functional guarantee: a right to challenge an administrative decision must translate into a meaningful possibility of obtaining protection from a competent body, including where urgent or preventive relief is necessary. The Notice implicitly challenges interpretations of standing and admissibility that may produce “de facto” exclusion even where “de jure” rights to challenge exist.This is particularly important in environmental matters, where the harms alleged are often scientifically complex and can be irreversible.
Costs form the next fault line. The question is not only “can you sue?” but “will you dare to sue?” Even where a claimant has standing, the ability to pursue a challenge can be undermined by uncertainty about litigation costs, the risk of adverse costs, and the expenses associated with expert evidence. The Commission underline that legal systems must avoid designing cost regimes that deter legitimate challenges and thereby weaken environmental enforcement. Already in Case C-530/11 CJEU declared that, by failing to transpose correctly Articles 3(7) and 4(4) of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, inasmuch as they provide that the judicial proceedings referred to must not be prohibitively expensive, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
The Notice also draws attention to the fact that environmental harm is not always amenable to retrospective correction. If a challenged decision leads to irreversible damage, then a remedy that arrives after the fact may be legally available but environmentally ineffective. This is where the availability of timely judicial intervention matters (see Article 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). The Commission’s framing suggests that access to justice must include not only the existence of review, but the capacity of review to deliver practically useful outcomes. In other words, the legal remedy must be capable of addressing environmental risk in timeframes compatible with ecological harm. Or, in case Case C-752/18 CJEU noted (33, 34) that, in the absence of harmonisation of national enforcement mechanisms, the details of their implementation are governed by the internal legal order of the Member States by virtue of the principle of procedural autonomy of those States. Nevertheless, the means of implementation must meet two conditions, namely that they are no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and that they do not make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness) (C 407/18, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited). In the second place, when the Member States implement EU law, they are required to ensure compliance with the right to an effective remedy enshrined in the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter (C 556/17, paragraph 69), a provision which constitutes a reaffirmation of the principle of effective judicial protection. In the case of actions intended to secure compliance with environmental law, in the particular on the initiative of environmental protection associations as in the main proceedings, that right to an effective remedy is also enshrined in Article 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention.
The Notice’s emphasis on meaningful access to justice also implies that national procedural designs should be capable of supporting timely and comprehensible litigation.
Another dimension concerns evidence and information asymmetries. Environmental assessment files are frequently held by public authorities and developers, while affected parties and NGOs may lack full access to the data needed to challenge technical conclusions. The Commission’s approach to access to justice therefore aligns with the broader logic that claimants must have access to relevant evidence.
We cannot skip noticing the underlined importance of the Aarhus convention standards (98). By virtue of Article 216(2) of the TFEU, the Aarhus Convention is part of the EU legal order (Case C-243/15 LZ II, paragraph 45). The requirements of the EU legal order, which are binding for the Member States in the implementation of Article 9(3) of the Convention, include the uniform application and interpretation of EU law. A key mechanism for ensuring this is the possibility for — and sometimes the duty on — national courts to seek a ruling from the CJEU under Article 267 of the TFEU on the validity or interpretation of specific EU law requirements. This necessitates access to the national courts.
The practical message of C/2026/4950, as a compilation of EU legislation and CJEU case law, is that environmental litigation regulation must be built around effectiveness, not only around procedural correctness: access to justice is not a peripheral guarantee. It is an enforcement mechanism. Without it, environmental standards do not reliably control administrative decision-making, and ecological harm can proceed unchecked until it is too late.
ReLex
