Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:479
Date: 2016-06-28
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Environment
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 21 September 2016 1. Environment — Atmospheric pollution — Directive 2001/80 — Large combustion plants — Emission limit values — Derogation — Condition — Solid fuels used by a plant with an average volatile matter content lower than 10% — Restrictive interpretation (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/80, Art. 4(3) and Annex VI, part A) 2. Environment — Atmospheric pollution — Directive 2001/80 — Large combustion plants — Emission limit values — Derogation — Condition — Solid fuels used by a plant with an average volatile matter content lower than 10% — Failure to fulfil obligations — Justification based on safety and economic reasons — Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/80, Art. 4(3) and Annex VI, Part A) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 41-45, 47-49) 2. A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) of Directive 2001/80 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, read in conjunction with Part A of Annex VI thereto, by failing to correctly apply that directive to a power station. In that regard, even if it was established that the derogation provided for in footnote (3) to Part A of Annex VI to Directive 2001/80 was negotiated to include a plant that operated on solid fuels with a volatile content of less than 10%, that plant must nonetheless meet the criteria set out by that provision in order to qualify for, and to continue to qualify for, that derogation. Furthermore, a Member State cannot reasonably invoke reasons of safety and of a purely economic nature in order to dispute the failure of which it is accused. (see paras 50-53, operative part)