Direct effect, consistent interpretation, and State liability are instruments developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union for national courts to remedy conflicts between national laws and EU environmental law (and may also be used in some jurisdictions to resolve national law and international law). This book looks at the 'remedial capacity' of these doctrines/tools from the perspective of the national court applying them. In short: What are the strengths, weaknesses, and unexplored opportunities at the grassroots level, and what can we learn from the comparative experiences in environmental law practice within Member States? The study reveals considerable differences in the way these doctrines are handled at the national level. And, it is clear that these differences go beyond the challenges facing newly joined Member States where the judiciary might be expected to still be learning its way with EU law. Even within long standing EU Members, there is by no means a consistency in approach. The judiciary that handles environmental cases has recently established an informal cooperative network to learn from each other. It may be some years away from a time when national courts are regularly referred to not only to decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, but also to cases from other EU national courts to assist them in their decision-making. But, if this study, which is first of its kind in this field, helps to stimulate that process, the handling of environmental law within the EU can only be improved. (Series: The Avosetta Series - Vol. 10) ** About the editors: Prof. Jans is professor of Administrative Law at the University of Groningen. Prof. Macrory is professor of Environmental Law at University College London. Prof. Moreno Molina is professor of Administrative Law at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.