Case C‑404/13

The Queen, on the application of:

ClientEarth

v

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Air quality — Directive 2008/50/EC — Limit values for nitrogen dioxide — Obligation to apply for postponement of the deadline by submitting an air quality plan — Penalties’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 19 November 2014

Environment — Atmospheric pollution — Ambient air quality — Directive 2008/50 — Limit values for the protection of human health — Nitrogen dioxide — Failure by a Member State to comply — No application to postpone the deadline fixed by the directive — Obligation for Member States to establish an air quality plan — Requirement for the national court to take any necessary measure to ensure compliance with that obligation

Environment — Atmospheric pollution — Ambient air quality — Directive 2008/50 — Limit values for the protection of human health — Nitrogen dioxide — Impossibility of achieving conformity with limit values in a given zone or agglomeration — Air quality plans — Entitlement for directly concerned individuals to require the competent national authorities to establish an air quality plan

Environment — Atmospheric pollution — Ambient air quality — Directive 2008/50 — Limit values for the protection of human health — Nitrogen dioxide — Impossibility of achieving conformity with limit values in a given zone or agglomeration — No application by the Member State concerned to postpone the deadline fixed by the Directive — Establishment of an air quality plan — Insufficient to remedy the failure to comply with the obligations under the directive

Environment — Atmospheric pollution — Ambient air quality — Directive 2008/50 — Limit values for the protection of human health — Nitrogen dioxide — Impossibility of achieving conformity with limit values in a given zone or agglomeration — Postponement of deadlines — Conditions — Establishment of an air quality plan — Submission of an application — No exception to the obligations)

Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/50 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be able to postpone by a maximum of five years the deadline specified by the directive for achieving conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide specified in Annex XI thereto, a Member State is required to make an application for postponement and to establish an air quality plan when it is objectively apparent, having regard to existing data, and notwithstanding the implementation by that Member State of appropriate pollution abatement measures, that conformity with those values cannot be achieved in a given zone or agglomeration by the specified deadline. Directive 2008/50 does not contain any exception to the obligation flowing from Article 22(1). (see para. 35, operative part 1)

Where it is apparent that conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide established in Annex XI to Directive 2008/50 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe cannot be achieved in a given zone or agglomeration of a Member State by 1 January 2010, the date specified in that annex, and that Member State has not applied for postponement of that deadline under Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/50, the fact that an air quality plan which complies with the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the directive has been drawn up, does not, in itself, permit the view to be taken that that Member State has nevertheless met its obligations under Article 13 of the directive. A different interpretation would be liable to impair the effectiveness of Articles 13 and 22 of Directive 2008/50 because it would allow a Member State to disregard the deadline imposed by Article 13 under less stringent conditions than those imposed by Article 22. Furthermore, this interpretation is supported by the fact that Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2008/50 are, in principle, to apply in different situations and are different in scope. (see paras 44, 46, 49, operative part 2)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 52-56)