Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2007:148
Date: 2007-05-22
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment
Concepts: Environment;General;Legal certainty;Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;Freedom to pursue trade or professional activities
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment 1. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Claims that the Court should issue directions to an institution – Inadmissible (Arts 230 EC and 233 EC) 2. Environment – Protection of the ozone layer – Regulation No 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2037/2000, Arts 3, 4, 6 and 7) 3. Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Freedom to pursue a trade or profession – Restrictions – Conditions (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2037/2000) 4. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions 5. Community law – Principles – Legal certainty – Community rules (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2037/2000, Art. 7) 1. In an action for annulment founded on Article 230 EC, the jurisdiction of the Community judicature is confined to reviewing the legality of the contested measure, and the Court of First Instance cannot, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, issue directions to the Community institutions. If the contested measure is annulled, it is for the institution concerned to adopt, in accordance with Article 233 EC, the necessary measures to comply with the judgment annulling that measure. It follows that claims that the Court should issue directions to the Commission must be dismissed as inadmissible. (see paras 56-57) 2. The interpretation which the Commission made, under the new system established on 1 January 2005, of Articles 3, 4, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, which entails no longer allocating import quotas to importers and limiting imports of methyl bromide on a case by case basis, thus preventing importers from building up stocks, gives practical effect to those provisions and ensures that they are applied coherently and in a manner that corresponds to the overall scheme and the objectives of that regulation, which seeks to limit, in particular, the production and use of methyl bromide, in order to protect the ozone layer. In the first place, the wording of Article 7 of that regulation leaves the Commission free to choose which categories of undertaking from among those referred to in Article 2 of the regulation are to receive import quotas under that provision. It follows that the Commission is not obliged under Article 7 to allocate import quotas to importers. Secondly, under Articles 3 and 4 of the same regulation, the use and placing on the market of methyl bromide in 2005 are strictly confined to critical uses. It is clear from those provisions that methyl bromide is to be available within the Community only where there is specific need for a critical use. Thirdly, the grant of two licences for each importation operation, the first to the user and the second to the importer, as provided for by the system established by the Commission, is consistent with Article 6(1) of the regulation at issue, that provision specifying neither who is to be granted a licence nor the number of licences to be issued per import transaction. Moreover, Articles 6 and 7 of the regulation are complementary provisions in that both articles together seek to control and limit the amounts of controlled substances imported into the Community. Finally, in view of the restrictions on the production, use and placing on the market of methyl bromide imposed by Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 2037/2000, it follows from the overall scheme of that regulation that the purpose of Articles 6 and 7 thereof is to ensure that the importation of methyl bromide does not go beyond what is strictly necessary for the critical uses specifically identified. Consequently, the new system established by the Commission from 1 January 2005 constitutes a lawful application of Articles 3, 4, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 2037/2000 that is compatible with those provisions. (see paras 74, 77-80, 83) 3. The right to freedom to pursue a trade or profession is not absolute but must be viewed in relation to its social function. Its exercise may therefore be restricted, provided that such restrictions correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community and that they do not constitute, with regard to the aim pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference which infringes upon the very substance of the rights thus guaranteed. In that regard, the new system introduced by the Commission on 1 January 2005, in implementation of Regulation No 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, simply changes the circumstances in which methyl bromide is imported and does not mean that importers of that controlled substance are obliged to cease trading. Even if the new system were to be regarded as a restriction, the general interest pursued by the Community is the protection of the ozone layer. Any restriction there may be is justified, in any event, by the fact that it is imposed in application of the regulation in a way which is consistent therewith, and cannot be regarded as disproportionate or intolerable or as infringing upon the very substance of that right, since the said importers can continue to pursue their previous economic activities. (see paras 87-88) 4. A prudent and alert economic operator who could have foreseen the adoption of a Community measure likely to affect his interests cannot rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations if such a measure is adopted. Nor may a person plead infringement of that principle unless he has been given specific assurances by the administration. By contrast, a prior administrative practice on the part of the Commission that has been made public may, in the absence of indications to the contrary, give rise to a legitimate expectation that the same rules will be applied, particularly if there is nothing to distinguish the communications of the Community institution concerned from its previous communications. However, those principles cannot be applied in circumstances where the wording of the Commission’s notice to importers in the European Union in 2005 of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer is distinguished from the wording of the notice the previous year, notably by the reference to Article 3(2)(ii) of Regulation No 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, from which it is apparent that in 2005 import quotas would no longer be granted in accordance with the Commission’s earlier practice but in accordance with that provision. (see paras 103, 105-106) 5. The principle of legal certainty is a fundamental principle of Community law which requires, in particular, that rules should be clear and precise, so that individuals may be able to ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations are and may take steps accordingly. However, where a degree of uncertainty regarding the meaning and scope of a rule of law is inherent in the rule, it is necessary to examine whether the rule of law at issue displays such ambiguity as to prevent individuals from resolving with sufficient certainty any doubts as to the scope or meaning of that rule. In that context, having regard, primarily, to the provisions of Regulation No 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, but also to the wording of the Commission’s notice to importers in the European Union in 2005 of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer, concerning that regulation, it was not unforeseeable for alert importers either that import quotas would not be granted or that import quotas allocated to importers would be replaced by quotas allocated to users. It follows that neither that regulation nor that notice prevented individuals from resolving with sufficient certainty any doubts as to the scope or meaning of Article 7 of that regulation concerning import quotas of controlled substances from non-member countries. (see paras 108-109)