No right to enforce EU air pollution law: only a Crackerjack pencil

31 May 2011 by

More fossil fuel power stations in the news (see my previous post), and more struggling with which bits of Euro environmental law ordinary people are allowed to enforce, and which bits are for the Commission.

Various NGOs challenged the grant of permits to 3 new power stations in the Netherlands, because the state was exceeding its emission limits for sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) and the grant of permits would simply add to these exceedences. The case was referred to the CJEU. The Advocate-General  thought that the exceedences were relevant to whether the permits should be granted – her opinion has been translated into virtually all Euro languages (including Maltese) but not English. Last week, the CJEU disagreed  – in English.

The problem arose because the EU made two directives which didn’t talk to each other.

Directive 1 (NEC), 2001/81/EC laid down National Emission Ceilings for our pollutants; by its Article 4, the Netherlands was told not to emit any more than 50 kilotonnes of SO2 and 260 kilotonnes of NOx by the end of 2010. As that deadline approached, it was plainly not going to comply with this ceiling.

Directive 2 (IPPC) 96/61/EC (as codified by 2008/1/EC) required heavy industry to get permits before they could operate; it also provided for public participation in the permitting process. Our 3 power stations applied for and got their IPPC permits – the SO2 from the 3 would contribute 5.9% of the National Emission Ceiling for that pollutant. So the NGOs said – but hang on, you cant grant those permits, because every tonne thereby permitted would put Netherlands further in breach of the NEC Directive. They went to court in the Netherlands, and understandably the court referred a list of questions to CJEU by way of preliminary reference.

Advocate-General Kokott said, whilst you can’t equate the standards under IPPC with the national rules under NEC,  you must not ignore the NEC when you decide whether to grant an IPPC permit. And she added that individuals should be able to rely on Article 4 NEC in the context of their undoubted public rights to participate under IPPC; in Euro-jargon, Article 4 NEC had “direct effect”, even though it was only on the face of it concerned with national emissions ceilings.

Oh no, said the CJEU. Article 4 NEC and the NEC directive as a whole

is based on a purely programmatic approach under which the Member States enjoy wide flexibility as regards the choice of the policies and measures…in order progressively to achieve a structural reduction of emissions…to amounts not exceeding…the emission ceilings…..It follows that attainment of the objectives set by the directive cannot interfere directly in the procedures for grant of an environmental permit.” para.75.

And Article 4 does not lay down any unconditional and sufficiently precise obligation such as to entitle an individual to rely on it to make a claim in respect of an IPPC permit.

Well, this is really odd. Article 4 tells Member States to “limit their annual national emissions” to x tonnes. What could be clearer and more unconditional than that?

As ever, realpolitik lies beneath these bland formulations. The whole process of permitting, and energy policy in general, would be thrown into complete chaos if Member State limits were really regarded as, er, limits. You could not permit a shiny new efficient station to start operating until you had closed down a less efficient old one – and that, if achieveable at all under current EU law, would cause massive uncompensatable losses to the latter generator. In the greater scheme of things, this might be thought to be a good thing – Netherlands would maximise its energy yield from its allowable emissions. But this is not how the energy sector has been regulated in the past.

Instead, individuals were given a rather feeble consolation prize by the CJEU (readers over a certain age may recall the Crackerjack pencil: good Wiki article for those who are not). No, they could not play their role in enforcing Article 4 – if anyone could, it would be the Commission. Instead, they could enforce Article 6, which required Member States to come up with and update action programmes addressed at complying with Article 4. This Article 6 obligation was, mysteriously, “unconditional and sufficiently precise” on the principle, I suppose, that there either is, it is not, a programme purporting to address Article 4. The CJEU acknowledged that Member States would have

wide flexibility in selecting the specific initiatives to be implemented, whilst it is also true that they are not obliged to adopt policies and measures to ensure that ceilings are not exceeded before the end of 2010.

But, whilst this conferred a discretion, Article 6 involves limits on its exercise as to the appropriateness of the body of policies to the objective of limiting emissions – and those limits could be relied upon by individuals in national courts; para.103.

So the CJEU, faced with the consequences of ill-drafted and badly-intersecting legislation on similar subject-matter, bailed out – unlike the brave AG who thought that limits should be enforced by as many people as possible.  But the game is not completely over for the NGOs, if the CJEU really means what it said about a proper review of the Article 6 programmes.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: