Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2005:412
Date: 2005-11-23
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment
Concepts: Environment
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary of the Judgment Environment – Protection of the ozone layer – Directive 2003/87 – National allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances (NAP) – NAP Notification procedure – Right of the relevant Member State to propose amendments to the NAP after its notification – Lawfulness – Conditions (European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87, Arts 9(3) and 11(1)) The purpose of Directive 2003/87 – establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61 – is to establish an efficient European market in greenhouse gas emission allowances, with the least possible diminution of economic development and employment. Therefore, even though Directive 2003/87 aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the commitments of the Community and its Member States under the Kyoto Protocol, that aim must be achieved, in so far as possible, while respecting the needs of the European economy. It follows that the national allocation plans for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances (NAP) developed under that directive must take due account of accurate data and information relating to emission forecasts for the installations and sectors which the directive covers. In the context of the NAP notification procedure to the Commission, if a NAP is based in part on incorrect information or erroneous evaluations relating to the level of emissions in certain sectors or certain installations, the Member State in question must be entitled to propose amendments to the NAP. It follows both from the wording of Directive 2003/87, and from the general structure and objectives of the system which it establishes, that a Member State is entitled to propose amendments to its NAP after it has been notified to the Commission, and until its adoption of its decision under Article 11(1), and that the Commission cannot, when adopting a rejection decision in accordance with Article 9(3) of the Directive, constrain the Member State in the exercise of its right. That institution must therefore only establish whether the amendments in question were compatible with the criteria listed in Annex III to, or with Article 10 of, that directive. Moreover, in the context of that same notification procedure, it is immaterial that the NAP was characterised as ‘provisional’ when originally notified. However, if the NAP is incomplete or ‘provisional’, the Commission is entitled to reject it either because it fails to comply with the criteria laid down by Directive 2003/87 or because the Commission is unable to assess its conformity with those criteria. In that situation, the Commission is entitled, by rejecting the NAP, to oblige the Member State to notify a new and complete NAP before it takes its definitive decision under Article 11(1) of that directive. (see paras 60, 63, 73)