Conclusion

The idea of environmental justice is based on the principles of environmental democracy. The realisation of environmental protection and sustainable development can be achieved only if the administrative authorities, public and industry representatives participate in making decisions about activities that may have a significant impact on the environment.

The question that arises is: What is the meaning of the term “environment” in comparative law? This chapter has shown that there is a large influence of the anthropocentric understanding of the environment in comparative law, exemplified in the positive legal definition of environmental rights. In some constitutions, like that of Serbia, the anthropocentric understanding of the environment is directly applied in the definition of environmental rights. By giving every person the right to a healthy environment, the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia associates the term environment only to the health of people. The Constitution of France introduces the term “balanced environment”, which could indicate a broader definition. However, further elaboration (“balanced environment which shows due respect for the health”) reveals a narrow definition of environmental rights. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway clearly advocates the broader definition of environmental rights, defining this right cumulatively, as “a right to an environment that is conductive to health” and as “a right to a natural environment whose productivity and diversity are maintained”. The Constitution of Greece stipulates that “the protection of the natural and cultural environment constitutes the right of every person”, which leads me to the conclusion that it is a broader definition of environmental rights. In the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, there is a considerable influence of ecological theories.

The question that arises is the meaning of environmental justice. If we define environmental justice as the equitable distribution of environmental values and environmental risks, we have to determine the conditions for establishing the equal protection of participants in that distribution. Another matter is how to identify who has the right to participate in decision-making. If an individual or group is not recognised as a holder of rights, they will not be in a legal position to participate in decision­making. The fact that the public is recognised as a participant in decision­making in environmental matters does not mean that the public will have a significant impact on decision-making. When it comes to making environmental decisions, it is necessary to provide the public with access to environmental information relevant to decision-making, so that members of the public are able to understand the motives of administrative bodies when making certain decisions in environmental matters. In other words, environmental justice can be achieved only if the public has a right of access to environmental information.

The overview of ECJ practice shows that the process of public participation in environmental decision-making is a special administrative procedure. The ECJ jurisprudence shows that complete application of participatory parity is possible only when: a) the public is promptly informed of the participatory decision-making process; b) the public has a right to equal access to the environmental information that is important for decision-making; c) the public has a right to participate in environmental decision-making from an early stage, with a possibility of influencing the content of the decision, which does not rule out the possibility of participating in the later stages of the decision-making; d) the public participation process is arranged in such manner that, at each stage, the public is provided with sufficient time to adequately prepare and take part in the procedure; and e) the public has a right to present comments, opinions, new analyses of the environmental impact of the concrete project and to file an objection to the implementation of the proposed activities (with the authorities’ obligation to explain a decision that rejects an opinion, comment or complaint).