CELEX: 62014CA0506
Language: en
Date: 2016-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-506/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Yara Suomi Oy, Borealis Polymers Oy, Neste Oil Oyj, SSAB Europe Oy v Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Method of allocating free allowances — Calculation of the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor — Decision 2013/448/EU — Article 4 — Annex II — Validity — Application of uniform cross-sectoral correction factor to facilities in sectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage — Determination of the product benchmark for hot metal — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 10(9) — Annex I — Validity)

9.1.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/5
            
         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Yara Suomi Oy, Borealis Polymers Oy, Neste Oil Oyj, SSAB Europe Oy v Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö
   (Case C-506/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Method of allocating free allowances - Calculation of the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor - Decision 2013/448/EU - Article 4 - Annex II - Validity - Application of uniform cross-sectoral correction factor to facilities in sectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage - Determination of the product benchmark for hot metal - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 10(9) - Annex I - Validity))
   (2017/C 006/05)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   
      Referring court
   
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Yara Suomi Oy, Borealis Polymers Oy, Neste Oil Oyj, SSAB Europe Oy
   
      Defendant: Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Examination of the third and fourth questions has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 15(3) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Examination of the sixth and seventh questions has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Annex I to Decision 2011/278.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Examination of the fifth question referred has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the first subparagraph of Article 10(9) of Decision 2011/278.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council are invalid.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               The temporal effects of the declaration of invalidity of Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Decision 2013/448 are limited so that, first, that declaration does not produce effects until 10 months following the date of delivery of the judgment in Borealis Polyolefine and Others (C-191/14, C-192/14, C-295/14, C-389/14 and C-391/14 to C-393/14, EU:C:2016:311), so as to enable the European Commission to adopt the necessary measures and, second, measures adopted during that period on the basis of the invalidated provisions cannot be called into question.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.