16.1.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 15/27
Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: C. Z., M. C., S. P. and Others Defendants: Ilva SpA (in extraordinary administration), Acciaierie d’Italia Holding SpA, Acciaierie d’Italia SpA
Questions referred 1.
May Directive 2010/75/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), in particular recitals 4, 18, 34, 28 and 29 and Articles 3(2), 11, 12 and 23 thereof, together with the precautionary principle and the principle of the protection of human health referred to in Article 191 TFEU and Article 174 of the [EC] Treaty, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, on the basis of a national law, provide that the Assessment of Adverse Effects on Health (AAEH) is an act falling outside the scope of the procedure for the grant and review of the Integrated Environmental Permit (IEP) — in this instance [the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers (DPCM) of] 2017 — and that the drawing up of an AAEH need not have any automatic consequences in terms of its timely and proper consideration by the competent authority in the context of an IEP/DPCM review procedure, especially where the AAEH indicates an unacceptable health risk for a significant population affected by the polluting emissions, or may that directive rather be interpreted as meaning that: (i) the tolerable risk to human health may be assessed by means of a scientific, epidemiological analysis; (ii) the AAEH must be an act coming within the scope of the IEP/DPCM grant and review procedure, and indeed a necessary prerequisite of that procedure and one demanding mandatory, proper and timely consideration by the authority having competence to grant and review the IEP? 2.
May Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), in particular, recitals 4, [15], 18, 21, 34, 28 and 29 and Articles 3(2), 11, 14, 15, 18 and 21 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, on the basis of a national law, a Member State must provide that the Integrated Environmental Permit (in this instance, IEP 2012, DPCM 2014, DPCM 2017) must always take into account all the emitted substances which have been scientifically shown to be harmful, including fractions of PM10 and PM2,5, and which originate from the plant under assessment, or may that directive be interpreted as meaning that the Integrated Environmental Permit (the administrative decision granting authorisation) need cover only polluting substances identified in advance by reference to the nature and type of industrial activity being carried on? 3.
May Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), in particular recitals 4, 18, 21, 22, 28, 29, 34 and 43 and Articles 3(2), 25, 11, 14, 16 and 21 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, on the basis of a national law, a Member State may, where an industrial activity is creating a serious and significant threat to the integrity of the environment and human health, extend the period within which the operator must bring the industrial activity into line with the permit granted, by carrying out the environmental protection and health protection measures and actions provided for therein, by approximately seven and a half years from the deadline initially set, giving a total period of eleven years?
(1)
OJ 2010 L 334, p 17.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 4 October 2022 — AB v Finanzamt Köln-Süd (Case C-627/22) (2023/C 15/29) Language of the case: German Referring court Finanzgericht Köln