1.
|
Date |
29th of March 2019 |
|
Type of Act (name in English / in the official language) |
Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, Ro 2018/02/0023 |
|
Enacted by |
Supreme Administrative Court |
|
Reference to the Constitution (art.) |
[Art 47 Fundamental Rights Charter] |
|
Subject area |
|
|
If the act implements a source of EU Law: cite the relevant EU legal source |
Art 47 Fundamental Rights Charter |
|
Comment |
The court had to decide whether a conviction of a bank (as a legal entity) as the result of administrative criminal proceedings necessarily presupposes an administrative criminal conviction of the executives (board members, managing directors). The background to this was the implementation of EU regulations in financial market law, which provided for the criminal liability of legal entities. In the absence of applicable special provisions, the Supreme Administrative Court deemed it necessary to have recourse to the Administrative Criminal Code (VStG), which gives the bank a procedural legal position that meets the requirements of the right to a fair trial. The procedural guarantees required by Art. 47 GRC are therefore also guaranteed for the legal person in proceedings under the VStG. Having clarified other aspects of the administrative criminal proceedings against the bank, the court notes that it is in any event irrelevant whether and, if so, against which natural person administrative criminal proceedings are or have been conducted. |
|
Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any) |
|
|
Available Text |
https://www.vwgh.gv.at/medien/mitteilungen/ro_2018020023.pdf?6x8bh4 |
|
Date of entry into force |
2.
|
Date |
6th of March 2019 |
|
Type of Act (name in English / in the official language) |
Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof), |
|
Enacted by |
Supreme Administrative Court |
|
Reference to the Constitution (art.) |
-- |
|
Subject area |
Reference to Climate change |
|
If the act implements a source of EU Law: cite the relevant EU legal source |
Refers to EUs emission trading scheme |
|
Comment |
The Supreme Administrative Court had to deal with an appeal against a decision of the Federal Administrative Court, which prohibited the construction of a third runway of the Vienna airport. The Court discussed whether the construction of the third runway should be prohibited in order to avoid climate change. The Administrative Court confirmed that climate protection is one of the relevant issues in the environmental impact assessment. However, it would fall short to deny an airport permission to build a (further) runway in view of the advancing global climate change if the overall greenhouse gas emissions from air traffic remain unchanged. The law of the European Union therefore relies on the so-called "emissions trading system" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by aircraft operators. Accordingly, greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are generally allocated to aircraft operators, but not to airport operators. The Court concluded, that climate protection is therefore not an obstacle to the approval of the third runway. |
|
Secondary sources/ doctrinal works (if any) |
|
|
Available Text |
https://www.vwgh.gv.at/medien/mitteilungen/ro_2018030031.pdf?6vyi6f |
|
Date of entry into force |
|