The god of free trade: why Austria cannot stop big lorries from using its motorways

21 January 2012 by

C-28/09, European Commission v. Austria, 21 December 2011 – read judgment 

Many countries in the EU are struggling to comply with its laws about air pollution. The UK is in continuing breach of its nitrogen dioxide emission limit: see my post just before Christmas. But one way a country can try to comply with these laws is by banning or limiting heavy traffic. And that is exactly what Austria did in respect of an important bit of its motorway network; it prohibited lorries of over 7.5 tonnes carrying certain goods from using a section of the A 12 motorway in the Inn valley. And just before Christmas, it paid the price.

The EU Court told Austria it was infringing EU law, in particular, Articles 28 and 29 of the EC Treaty (now Arts 34 and 35 of TFEU) which are the core provisions protecting free movement of goods. Why, given that it was trying to comply proactively with another requirement of EU law?

A member state may derogate from these overarching economic principles by invoking Article 30 of the Treaty (Art 36 TFEU) , under which a prima facie infringement of the free movement rules can be justified on the basis of the protection of human health and life or protection of the environment. You might not have thought that this would cause too much problem for the justifying member state, given that the law was designed to mitigate air pollution which is a significant cause of disease, so it ticks two of the Article 30 boxes in one, and is an EU law enforced by the self-same Commission And it was no problem until one got to the requirement that “the measures in question are proportionate to the objective sought“. English lawyers have become used to the principle of proportionality as a slightly beefed up version of Wednesbury unreasonableness, but still with a reasonably wide area of discretion afforded to the decision-maker. But poke the great god of free trade, and a much fiercer and more demanding version of the principle emerges, red in tooth and claw. Derogate from free movement, at your peril.

Austria’s prohibition was phrased in a quite subtle way. Lorries of over 7.5 tonnes transporting waste, stones, earth, excavated material, motor vehicles, steel, and, a mistake this, marble and travertine were banned. So it was a combination of the lorry weight and the nature of the load carried which led to the ban. Austria said that these particular loads were the sorts of things which could sensibly be loaded on trains; they said that was the purpose of the ban. Why, they said, should we endure all this pollution when a chunk of it can be avoided by making people use the trains running along this valley? Indeed this itself is another policy objective embedded in EU policy. The marble and travertine perhaps raised an eyebrow, as one of the main beneficiaries of Austria’s roads is Italy, with its fine stone exports.

Ultimately the CJEU thought that the nut of air pollution could be cracked with a smaller sledgehammer than that wielded by the Austrian government. Cutting down on the smellier lorries rather those carrying specific loads could be done; so could a fixed speed limit of 100kmh, rather than the variable speed limit then adopted. So reasoned the Court. But air pollution is not quite like this; a member state, when faced with a pollution source of this type (dynamic and fluctuating) cannot just say there is one obvious and non-trade offending route to a reduction in air pollution. It has to, and should, make all appropriate efforts to reduce pollution. So it is not really either-or, but both if not all available measures.

One curiosity about the reasoning is that the alleged losers in all this were those who made it their business to send their goods by road through Austria, from, say, Italy to Germany. Those losers are of course the polluters – together with lots of others. There is a maxim which invariably emerges in environmental cases, not least because it is built into the European treaty – the polluter pays principle. But in this case the polluter is not paying at all – nor did the maxim surface. He, the trader or lorry operator, is getting the benefit of some else’s road system, and that someone else (Austria) has to find alternative ways, at its expense, to overcome pollution caused by him and others. Some times, when one stands in awe of the huge advances made in environmental protection by the Community in the last 35 years, one forgets for a moment what it is really all about. And you are only reminded how powerful the trade demands are when you compare them to environmental counterweights, or indeed their human rights equivalents; remember the fag pack machine case where freedom of movement considerations were far more powerful than the easily overcome Article 1 Protocol right, when both were relied upon in the same case. Or indeed more recently where uniformity in welfare measures for live animals in transit was held to be more important than higher welfare standards imposed (pursuant to the Commission’s own welfare Regulation) by a particular Member state – see our post on this issue.

A final observation; CJEU cases do not often move apace, but the gap between the Advocate-General’s opinion (take your pick of the available translations including Estonian, but you won’t find English there) and the judgment of the Court is one year and five days. Perhaps they found it more difficult than the anodyne judgment suggests. Remember no-one is allowed to dissent in the CJEU; they all have to agree, on something or other.

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

Related reading:

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 care homes 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 coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations 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 Facial Recognition 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 hague convention Harry Dunn 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 nuisance Obituary ouster clauses 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 procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum 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 sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: