Some authors have clarified in which terms the DNSH under EU law differs from or overlaps with other EU environmental law principles (namely, integration, precaution and prevention, rectification at source, and polluter pays).56 An author underlines the distinctions that set DNSH apart while also highlighting areas of overlap and connection.57 Such scholar observes, inter alia, that the principle of precaution is more linked to an element of uncertainty, while the DNSH accepts a certain level (threshold) of harm, as long as it does not become ‘significant’, based on the technical screening criteria.58 If the threshold set by the EU legal framework is not respected, the harm to environmental objectives becomes significant and, as such, not tolerated. Given the threshold, the technical assessment is crucial both for the DNSH and the precautionary principles.59 Starting from a decision by an administrative court60, an author observes that the relationship between the DNSH and the precautionary principles sees the latter always prevailing over the former, especially in cases in which the multilevel legal order imposes that projects and works are subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures.61 In such view, the DNSH is not new and autonomous in the multilevel legal system, as it is already regulated by the provisions on EIA and may, however, be encompassed in other EU principles (like the integration or rectification at source principles).62 However, the current multilevel legal system shows that the DNSH is getting a more and more autonomous dimension and “possesses a distinct scope of application compared to other EU environmental principles, thereby serving as a complementary framework.”63 Secondly, the analysis of administrative courts’ decisions shows that complying with the applicable EU and national environmental law is a separate obligation from the need for a DNSH assessment. In particular, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIAs, SEAs) and sustainability proofing of a measure do not automatically imply that no significant harm is done, and therefore a specific DNSH assessment is required.64 56 R. Famà, cit., p. 72. See also F. Cusano, cit., p. 869-871. 57 R. Famà, cit., p. 72. 58 R. Famà, cit., p. 74. 59 R. Famà, cit., p. 74. 60 Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, Rome, Division III, judgment 8 November 2023, No. 17216. 61 R. Ferrara, cit., p. 22 ff. 62 R. Ferrara, cit., p. 26-28. 63 R. Famà, cit., p. 67 and 72. 64 For a different view see R. Ferrara, cit., passim. On the relationship between EIA and the DNSH see also the 121 THE “DO NO SIGNIFICANT HARM” (DNSH) PRINCIPLE IN THE MULTILEVEL LEGAL SYSTEM
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==