Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Republic of Estonia v. Commission of the European Communities

Pays/Territoire
Union européenne
Type de cour
Cour internationale
Date
Sep 23, 2009
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
European Court of Justice
Siège de la cour
Luxembourg
Juge
Forwood, N.J.
Šváby, D.
Moavero Milanesi, E.
Numéro de référence
T-263/07
Langue
Estonien
Sujet
Air et atmosphère, Environnement gén.
Mot clé
Normes sur l'émission Qualité de l'air/pollution de l'air Préservation de l'écosystème Forêt récréative Normes de qualité de l'eau Pollution atmosphérique (sources fixes) Normes environnementales Normes Normes acoustiques Changement de climat Normes relatives aux rejets d'effluents Eau à usage récréatif
Résumé
In these two landmark rulings the Court of First Instance (CFI) annulled the Commission decisions concerning the national allocation plan (NAP) for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland and Estonia for the period from to 2008-2012. Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, provides that Member States are to develop a NAP stating the total quantity of allowances that it intends to allocate for five-year periods and how it proposes to allocate them. The plan is to be notified to the Commission and to the other Member States. If the NAP is incompatible with the Directive’s criteria, the Commission may reject it or any aspect of it. The Commission held the NAPs notified by Poland and Estonia in 2006 for the period 2008 to 2012 incompatible with the criteria in the Directive and decided that the proposed total annual quantities of emission allowances should be reduced (by 26.7% and 47.8% respectively). The two countries asked the CFI to annul the Commission’s decisions. The CFI clarified that a Member State alone has the power, first, to draw up the NAP whereby it proposes to achieve the aims of the Directive concerning greenhouse gas emissions and, second, to take final decisions fixing the total quantity of allowances which it will allocate for each five-year period and the distribution of that quantity amongst economic operators. Member States have a margin for manoeuvre in deciding the method which they adopt in order to draw up their NAP for allowances. For its part, the Commission has a restricted power of review in respect of NAPs. It can verify the conformity of the NAP with the Directive’s criteria and can only reject a plan on the grounds of incompatibility with those criteria and provisions, by reasoned decision. By specifying a specific quantity of allowances and by rejecting the NAPs on the basis of reasoning which consists only in the evocation of doubts as to the reliability of the data used by Poland and Estonia, the Commission exceeded the limits of its power of review under Directive 2003/87.
Texte intégral
Republic of Estonia v.Commission of the European Communities 20090922 english.pdf
Site web
curia.europa.eu