# C_2009267EN.01004401.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/44 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 26 August 2009 — Afton Chemical Limited v Secretary of State for Transport

(Case C-343/09)

2009/C 267/76

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Afton Chemical Limited

Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport

Questions referred

In relation to the provisions relating to metallic additives in Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of road transport fuels and amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC (‘the Directive’)( 1 ):

| 1. | With reference to that part of Article 1(8) which inserts a new Article 8(a)(2) into Directive 98/70( 2 ) limiting the use of methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl in fuel to 6 mg Mn per litre from 1 January 2011 and to 2 mg from 1 January 2014, is the imposition of such limits:
(1)
Unlawful as being based on a manifest error of assessment? (2)
Unlawful as being in violation of the requirements of the precautionary principle? (3)
Unlawful as lacking in proportionality? (4)
Unlawful as being contrary to the principle of equal treatment? (5)
Unlawful as being contrary to the principle of legal certainty? | (1) | Unlawful as being based on a manifest error of assessment? | (2) | Unlawful as being in violation of the requirements of the precautionary principle? | (3) | Unlawful as lacking in proportionality? | (4) | Unlawful as being contrary to the principle of equal treatment? | (5) | Unlawful as being contrary to the principle of legal certainty? |
| --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (1) | Unlawful as being based on a manifest error of assessment? | | | | | | | | | | |
| (2) | Unlawful as being in violation of the requirements of the precautionary principle? | | | | | | | | | | |
| (3) | Unlawful as lacking in proportionality? | | | | | | | | | | |
| (4) | Unlawful as being contrary to the principle of equal treatment? | | | | | | | | | | |
| (5) | Unlawful as being contrary to the principle of legal certainty? | | | | | | | | | | |

| 2. | With reference to that part of Article 1(8) which inserts a new Article 8(a)(4), Article 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(6) into Directive 98/70 requiring the labelling of all fuels which contain metallic additives with the phrase ‘contains metallic additives’, is the imposition of such a labelling requirement:
(1)
Unlawful as being based on a manifest error of assessment? (2)
Unlawful as lacking in proportionality? | (1) | Unlawful as being based on a manifest error of assessment? | (2) | Unlawful as lacking in proportionality? |
| --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------- |
| (1) | Unlawful as being based on a manifest error of assessment? | | | | |
| (2) | Unlawful as lacking in proportionality? | | | | |

---

( 1 )  OJ L 140, p. 88

( 2 )  Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EC, OJ L 350, p. 58

---