Gestion dynamique de la nature temporaire en Région bruxelloise

La recherche Biodiv.Temp est menée conjointement par le Centre de recherches et d’études pour l’action territoriale (CREAT) et le Séminaire de recherche en droit de l’environnement et de l’urbanisme (SERES) dans le cadre d’un financement Innoviris Anticipate. Cette recherche a pour objectif de fournir les outils juridiques et d’urbanisme nécessaires à l’établissement d’un maillage vert et bleu dynamique et cohérent tout en densifiant l’habitat en tenant compte des dynamiques temporelles et spatiales propres à la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Legal assessment explaining why COPA*COGECA's objections against the Nature Restoration Act proposal are misleading

In their letter of 26 June 2023 Copa*Cogeca asked the members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment to reject the Nature Restoration Law proposal. They based their arguments for this rejection on what they considered as ‘red line’ issues, which makes the law proposal unacceptable to them.As Legal Working Group (LWG) from SERE , we analysed these ‘red line’ issues and we concluded that their red line objections against the Nature Restoration Law proposal cannot withstand legal scrutiny. Many of their concerns are already present in the Commission proposal and are further addressed in the Swedish presidency compromise proposal. Further weakening of the Nature Restoration Law is against existing EU legislation

Legal assessment explaining why COPA*COGECA's objections against the Nature Restoration Act proposal are misleading

In their letter of 26 June 2023 Copa*Cogeca asked the members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment to reject the Nature Restoration Law proposal. They based their arguments for this rejection on what they considered as ‘red line’ issues, which makes the law proposal unacceptable to them.As Legal Working Group (LWG) from SERE , we analysed these ‘red line’ issues and we concluded that their red line objections against the Nature Restoration Law proposal cannot withstand legal scrutiny. Many of their concerns are already present in the Commission proposal and are further addressed in the Swedish presidency compromise proposal. Further weakening of the Nature Restoration Law is against existing EU legislation

Legal assessment of the Proposal for an EU Nature Restoration Law:Report by the Legal Working Group of the Society for Ecological Restoration Europe

This assessment is based on the Commission proposal for a Nature Restoration Law (hereafter referred to as NRL) from 22 June 2022.2 The Legal Working Group is aware that the proposal is currently being discussed by the Council and Parliament. It is therefore not an article-by-article assessment, but a more general assessment of several legal aspects of the law we consider to be particularly important. Our choice of the discussed aspects was based on ongoing political discussions on the law (e.g. in the EU parliament and Council). The note gives legal arguments why certain articles should remain in the law or should be amended or added to the law. Legal arguments include legal certainty for stakeholders, coherence with other EU legislation, legitimate expectations, accepted legal principles, etc. Where relevant, we include concrete suggestions for amending and improving the law proposal.<br/

Jurisprudence en bref : C.J.U.E., 10 juin 2010, aff. C-491/08, Commission c/ Italie

Manquement d'Etat - Directive 92/43/CEE "Habitats" - Conservation des habitats naturels - Faune et flore sauvages - Site d'importance communautaire (SIC) - Régime de protection provisoire avant désignation comme ZSC - Connectivité (couloirs écologiques - Complexe touristique "Is Arenas