ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Air quality – Directive 2008/50/EC – Limit values for nitrogen dioxide – Obligation to apply for postponement of the deadline by submitting an air quality plan – Penalties)
‘1. Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be able to postpone by a maximum of five years the deadline specified by the Directive for achieving conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide specified in annex XI thereto, a member state is required to make an application for postponement and to establish an air quality plan when it is objectively apparent, having regard to existing data, and notwithstanding the implementation by that member state of appropriate pollution abatement measures, that conformity with those values cannot be achieved in a given zone or agglomeration by the specified deadline. Directive 2008/50 does not contain any exception to the obligation flowing from article 22(1).
2. Where it is apparent that conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide established in annex XI to Directive 2008/50 cannot be achieved in a given zone or agglomeration of a member state by 1 January 2010, the date specified in that annex, and that member state has not applied for postponement of that deadline under article 22(1) of Directive 2008/50, the fact that an air quality plan which complies with the second subparagraph of article 23(1) of the Directive has been drawn up, does not, in itself, permit the view to be taken that that member state has nevertheless met its obligations under article 13 of the Directive.
3. Where a member state has failed to comply with the requirements of the second subparagraph of article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50 and has not applied for a postponement of the deadline as provided for by article 22 of the Directive, it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the Directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter.’
[2014] EUECJ C-404/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2382, [2015] PTSR 909
Bailii
European
Citing:
Reference from – Clientearth, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 1-May-2013
The court gave its reasons for referring to the ECJ, the question asked of it, as to the failure of the respondent to ensure compliance with the EU Directive on Nitrogen dioxide control, and the consequential orders. However, a declaration was . .
See Also – Clientearth v The Secretary of State For The Environment, Food And Rural Affairs ECJ 28-Nov-2013
Expedited procedure . .
Cited by:
At ECJ – Clientearth, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 29-Apr-2015
The applicant had challenged the failure by the governement to secure appropriate air quality standards. The question had earlier been referred to the ECJ, and the Court now considered the appropriate orders following the ECJ judgment.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Environment
Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565399
