CELEX: 62014CA0081
Language: en
Date: 2015-09-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-81/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV v College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/13/EC — Annex IIB — Atmospheric pollution — Volatile organic compounds — Emission reductions — Use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations — Obligations applying to existing installations — Time extension)

3.11.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 363/10
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV v College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland
   (Case C-81/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/13/EC - Annex IIB - Atmospheric pollution - Volatile organic compounds - Emission reductions - Use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations - Obligations applying to existing installations - Time extension))
   (2015/C 363/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Raad van State
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant: Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV
   
      Respondent: College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1)
            
            
               Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations must be interpreted as meaning that the time extension provided for in point (i) of the first paragraph of Annex IIB(2) to that directive may be given to the operator of an ‘installation’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that directive, for the implementation of his plan to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, where substitutes containing little or no solvent are still under development, even though, for that installation, a constant solid content of product can be assumed and used to define the reference point for emission reductions.
            
         
               2)
            
            
               Point (i) of the first paragraph of Annex IIB(2) to Directive 1999/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a time extension for the implementation of a scheme to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds requires an authorisation from the competent authorities, which presupposes a prior application from the operator concerned. When determining whether a time extension must be given to an operator for the implementation of a plan to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds and fixing the duration of the time extension which may be given, it is for those competent authorities, within the discretion available to them, to verify in particular that substitutes which may be used in the installations concerned and which may reduce the emissions of volatile organic compounds are actually under development, that the work in progress, in the light of the evidence provided, is capable of perfecting such substitutes and that there is no alternative measure which may result in similar or even greater emission reductions, at a lower cost, and, in particular, that other substitutes are not already available. Furthermore, account should be taken of the relationship between, on the one hand, the emission reductions which can be achieved by means of the substitutes under development and the cost of those substitutes and, on the other hand, the additional emissions engendered by the time extension and the cost of any alternative measures. The duration of the time extension must not go beyond what is necessary for substitutes to be developed. That must be assessed in the light of all the relevant factors and, in particular, the magnitude of the additional emissions engendered by the time extension and the cost of any alternative measures as compared with the magnitude of the emission reductions that will be achieved by the substitutes under development and the cost of those substitutes.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.