Legal Chronology of Judicial Review

2nd April 1997

A complaint was made to the European Commission from Greenpeace, the Marine Conservation Society and the Whale & Dolphin Conservation Society (supported by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds). The complaint stated that the Government had failed to implement the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive in the Atlantic Frontier. There has been no satisfactory response to this complaint from the UK Government.

On 5th June 1997 the European Commission responded. The letter stated that the Commission had indicated to the UK Government that all offshore oil and gas activities are included in Annex II of the Directive. Therefore an assessment of an oil and gas project is necessary where the UK authorities consider that their characteristics so require.

25th April 1997

Greenpeace wrote to Ian Lang (previous President of the Board of Trade at the Department of Trade and Industry) challenging the legality of granting oil exploration licenses in the 17th Round. Greenpeace raised a number of questions regarding the Government's consideration of cold water coral in the Atlantic Frontier as a habitat requiring protection under the European Habitats Directive.

7th May 1997

Greenpeace wrote to Margaret Beckett (the newly elected President of the Board of Trade) requesting her attention to previous correspondence.

10th June 1997

Greenpeace's solicitor wrote to Margaret Beckett threatening the UK Government with legal action for their failure to apply European law in the Atlantic Frontier prior to licensing exploration there under the 17th Round of Oil and Gas Exploration.

Greenpeace requested that Margaret Beckett consider suspending licenses for oil and gas exploration in the area until such time that Ms Beckett has fulfilled the Government's obligations under both the European Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Habitats Directive.

Ms Beckett was given until 5pm on 19th June to respond to this letter. Greenpeace's solicitor was instructed to apply to the High Court for leave for Judicial Review if no satisfactory response was received before the deadline.

A response was received at 4pm on 19th June but it did not fully address the points raised by Greenpeace. Legal proceedings will therefore commence.

Applying for leave

This is the first stage of legal proceedings. Greenpeace will present its case to a High Court Judge who will consider whether there is a case to answer. At this stage only Greenpeace presents evidence to the Court. The Judge will then decide whether or not the case may proceed to a Judicial Review (or "grant leave to proceed"). If leave is granted the case may proceed to a full Judicial Review hearing. A date will be set for the hearing after all parties (including the Government and any other interested parties) have served their evidence.

Applying for interim relief

If Greenpeace obtains leave then it will apply for interim relief. This mean that the High Court will consider whether or not to grant a stay on existing licenses pending the full hearing.

Interim relief is similar to an injunction; stopping any potentially harmful activity being undertaken in the area, pending the High Court's final judgement.

Without interim relief, oil companies which hold licences will commence appraisal drilling which may cause serious harm and is potentially illegal.

Judicial Review

A Judicial Review is a legal process by which a Court is asked to decide whether or not the Government's decisions were made lawfully.

Reference to the European Court of Justice Where decisions on a factor within a case raise issues of a purely European nature, the matter may be referred to the European Court of Justice by the High Court.

Background to relevant legislation

The European Habitats Directive

The European Habitats Directive sets out a list of habitats and individual species which should be considered for protection by member states.

Member states are required by the European Commission to draw up a list of sites that contain these habitats or species which may then be designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs).

Once Europe has received these draft lists from all Member States they will decide which sites to officially adopt as SACs. This is scheduled to happen in June 1998.

The Government body Scottish Natural Heritage has a policy to treat candidate SACs as if they had already been officially adopted and should therefore apply all protective measures required to these sites from that point onwards.

The Directive states that if a proposal is likely to have significant impacts on a designated site then an Environmental Impact Assessment should be undertaken prior to the proposal commencing. This includes external proposals which may impact upon the protected area.

The European Birds Directive

Under the European Birds Directive member states have been required to draw up a list of sites which should be protected for ornithological reasons. These sites were then designated as Special Protected Areas (SPAs). The Birds directive has subsequently been amended and incorporated into the Habitats Directive.

As a result of this Directive, Britain already has a network of designated SPAs which are protected by law.

As with the Habitats Directive, if a proposal is likely to have significant impacts on a designated site then an Environmental Impact Assessment should be undertaken prior to the proposal commencing. This includes external proposals which may impact upon the protected area.

The Natura 2000 Network

By the end of this century the combination of European sites designated as either SACs or SPAs will be called the Natura 2000 network.

Greenpeace's case

Greenpeace believes that the Government acted unlawfully in licensing oil exploration under the 17th Round of Oil and Gas Exploration.

This is because it failed to take the following matters into account:

1. The Government failed to consider Lophelia pertusa coral reefs for protection under the European Habitats Directive;

2. The Government failed to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment to assess whether oil and gas operations may adversely impact the local environment.

Why Greenpeace is proceeding with this Judicial Review

Greenpeace is trying to stop exploration for oil in the Atlantic Frontier. It believes that this activity is going to have environmental impacts globally, in terms of climate change, and for the local marine environment.

Greenpeace believes that the UK Government has acted unlawfully in licensing blocks of seabed for oil production since it has failed to consider its responsibility under the European Habitats Directive to protect the cold water coral reefs in this region.

The Connection between the legal case and the occupation of Rockall

The distant granite outcrop of Rockall, 289 miles out in the Atlantic, is the linchpin in Britain's plans to exploit a large part of the Atlantic Frontier for oil. Ownership of the waters and seabed around this old volcano confers the rights to the vast oil reserves beneath it. Four countries, UK, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland are currently in dispute over the Rockall area.

Greenpeace has seized Rockall, claiming her seas for the planet and its people. This is a bid to stop further oil exploration in the area. Greenpeace believe that further oil exploration is madness in light of evidence that we cannot afford to burn more than a quarter of the oil in known reserves without causing serious damage to the global climate.

These two elements of Greenpeace's work represent a physical and a legal defence of our global commons. Rockall, and the oceans of the Atlantic Frontier, constitute an area where Greenpeace believes the Government must draw a line and face up to its responsibility for the protection of the global commons of our air and sea.