Filling the gap in the EU air quality legislation: the medium combustion plants directive

The 2015 Medium Combustion Plants Directive (MCPD)1 was initially a part of the clean air legislation package initiated by the European Commission in order to achieve the short-term and long-term EU air quality objectives.2 The need for adopting the Directive was obvious: the MCPs increasingly contributed to air pollution,3 but emissions from them were not regulated at the EU level,4 even despite the fact that regulation of emissions from small and large combustion plants has already been present for a few years.5 Thus, the combustion of fuel in certain small combustion plants and appliances is covered by implementing measures as referred to in Directive 2009/125/EC,6 although further measures are urgently needed under this act in order to cover the remaining regulatory gap.7 Meanwhile, combustion of fuel in large combustion plants is covered by Directive 2010/75/EU,8 which repealed the previous Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plant

A review of EU regulation of sports nutrition: same game, different rules

Today’s athletes, both professionals and amateurs, use a wide range of different nutritional substances to increase training performance, improve the recovery process, burn fat, gain muscle mass, etc. Although such substances are not always thoroughly researched for their potential effect on humans, they are popular and easy to obtain. Therefore, an adequate regulatory system is needed to ensure the protection of consumers. Currently, however, there are no specific provisions with regard to sports nutrition in EU law; thus, such products are usually marketed as food supplements, fortified foods, dietetic foods, and/or foods with nutrition or health claims. This article reviews the relevant legislation with a particular emphasis on policy developments regarding sports nutrition

Achieving the EU air policy objectives in due time: a reality or a hoax?

The identification of air pollution as a global problem contributing to health disorders and damage to the environment sparked the development of national legislation as well as international cooperation initiatives to improve air quality. As a result, the introduction of new and tighter air quality standards, national emission ceilings and more environmentally-friendly technologies led to significant progress in reducing the levels of different pollutants in the ambient air. However, notwithstanding the achieved success, the overall damage dealt by air pollution remains high, while further attempts to tackle it are losing their momentum. With no perceptible finish line, the situation could last for decades, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of Euros outlays annually, thus compromising the very foundation of air policy. The article addresses this problem from the EU perspective

Promoting human health and the functioning of the internal market: the reaffirmation of the tobacco products directive’s key objectives in Poland v parliament and council, pillbox 38 and Philip Morris brands and others

The regulation of tobacco in the EU has a history of tough negotiations and legal challenges and the new 2014 Tobacco Products Directive has already proven to be no exception. Striving to promote the functioning of the internal market, yet at the same time maintain high level of health protection, this piece of legislation proliferated from international standards under the WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control and introduced more stringent marketing requirements for tobacco and its products than its predecessor. However, the Directive was immediately challenged by the industry and some Member States, which claimed that the new requirements on packaging and labelling as well as trade of tobacco and related products were inconsistent with the primary law. This analysis provides an insight into three recent parallel judgments of the European Court of Justice in cases Poland v Parliament and Council, Pillbox 38 and Philip Morris Brands and Others, which upheld the legality of the Tobacco Products Directive and reaffirmed the importance of preserving the balance between the smooth functioning of the internal market and the promotion of human health within the EU

Climate change and the constitutional obligation to protect natural resources: the Pennsylvania atmospheric trust litigation

When it comes to climate litigation, environmental plaintiffs in the United States have demonstrated a remarkable ingenuity in terms of utilizing various legal avenues to compensate for the persisting regulatory gaps. In the last few years, the public trust doctrine and constitutional law have been present among these, in an attempt to put the risks associated with climate change on the map of human rights in relation to the environment and natural resources. However, despite a nationwide occurrence of such lawsuits, courts have been cautious in their approach to them. Similar lawsuits have emerged outside the United States, in Europe and Asia, demonstrating some viability. This analysis addresses the recent litigation in Pennsylvania, where petitioners asked the court to order the state government to take action on climate change and to declare such action a constitutional obligation under the state’s Constitution

Environmental liability under scrutiny: the margins of applying the EU “polluter pays” principle against the owners of the polluted land who did not contribute to the pollution

The origins of the case Fipa Group and Others date back to the period from the 1960s–1980s, when two companies belonging to the industrial group Montedison SpA (now Edison SpA), Farmoplant SpA and Cersam Srl, operated an industrial site for the manufacture of insecticides and herbicides in a municipality of the Province of Massa Carrara in Tuscany, Italy.1 As a result of these industrial activities, massive contamination of the surrounding land by various chemical substances, including dichloroethane and ammonia, occurred.2 In 1995, the land was partly decontaminated; however, the decontamination proved to be inadequate. In 1998 the area was proclaimed a ‘site of national interest’ under Italian law for the purposes of its rehabilitation.

The role of courts in plastic pollution governance

Plastic pollution is a planetary crisis posing a significant threat to humans and the environment. The regulatory response to this crisis has so far been piecemeal and has not prevented the accumulation and ubiquity of plastic pollution. The growing concern over plastic pollution and the first regulatory measures directed against it soon resulted in court cases. By early 2023, cases concerning plastic pollution emerged in more than thirty countries around the world. From holding private polluters accountable to considering the constitutionality of restrictions on certain plastic products and to ordering regulatory bodies to adopt or implement such measures, courts are playing an increasingly important role in plastic pollution governance