Dear readers, In our final EEL News Service of 2016 we discuss four CJEU cases, and three AG opinions. Most strikingly perhaps, AG Sharpston delivered her Opinion in the EU-Singapore FTA case, which is set to determine the contours of EU trade policy for years to come, for instance where CETA is concerned. She argued that the trade deal should be concluded as a mixed agreement – requiring signatures from the EU and all of its Member States – since it includes aspects, such as protection of the environment, that are not covered by Union exclusive competence. Mixity brings challenges to concluding agreements with a broad scope, as we recently saw with the Walloon government’s objections to CETA and the Dutch EU-Ukraine agreement. These and other issues will be discussed at our upcoming CETA event in The Hague on 26 January, where you are very welcome to join in. See our Events section in this News Service for more details. Another AG opinion advised the Court to rule that REACH does not stand in the way of exporting chemicals illegally imported into the EU. The CJEU delivered its judgment in a case concerning a Decision derogating from ETS Directive 2003/87/EC in the area of aviation, interpreted the notion of ‘similar rights’ in the VAT Directive as including GHG emissions, and ruled in a curious case from Croatia on water pricing policies under the Water Framework Directive. Notwithstanding our usual focus on EU and international law, we also chose to discuss one particularly interesting national case, namely the atomic energy ruling of the Constitutional Court in Germany. As usual, we address a number of pertinent news items relating to environmental law and policy in the EU. Notable is the unprecedented Commission, European Parliament and Council joint declaration on legislative priorities for 2017, which emphasises inter alia waste management, clean energy and climate change policy. The Commission’s new clean energy package is given some attention, as well as the new Sustainable Development strategy. The new Plant Health Regulation also entered into force, and the Parliament and Council signed more stringent National Emissions Ceilings into law. Conservationists applauded the Commission’s decision to abstain from amending the Birds and Habitats Directives, and the European Parliament’s ENVI Committee voted for stricter ETS requirements, which will be discussed in plenary session in February 2017. We hope this EEL News Service will allow our readers to enter the next year well-informed on all aspects of EU environmental law. Happy holidays, on behalf of all involved in the EEL News Service and EEL Network! Wybe Douma and Olivier van Geel |
|
EU Court judgmentsNo EU obligation to treat third countries equallyCJEU judgment: Case C-272/15 Swiss International Air Lines (21/12/2016) The Court found that the EU is not obliged to grant equal treatment to all third countries in its external relations, and that the institutions have a broad discretion to formulate policy in this sphere. Referring to earlier case law, including Faust v Commission (52/81), it was noted that there is no principle requiring equal treatment in external relations in the Treaties and no obligation to treat third countries equally in the Court’s jurisprudence. Thus, the EU had acted within its rights when applying different standards to flights between EEA states and Switzerland. General Court dismisses action against genetically modified soybeanCJEU judgment: Case T-177/13 TestBioTech and Others v Commission(15/12/2016) According to the claimants, TestBioTech and Ors., the new Monsanto soybean under discussion in this case, which is mostly grown under the name Intacta in Brazil, was not subjected to the required standard of risk assessment by EFSA. Consequently, the Commission was allegedly wrong to grant authorisation for products containing, consisting of, or produced from the soybean in question. The claimants argued that the Commission’s confirmation of the authorisation of the soybean was in contravention of several provisions of Regulation No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed, as well as its broader obligation under Article 168 TFEU to protect human health. The Court held, however, that the Commission had fulfilled its obligations by acting on the assessment provided by EFSA. Notably, in its ruling, the Court mentioned the role of the precautionary principle as a duty of the Commission in such cases. CJEU rules ‘similar rights’ under VAT Directive includes GHG emissionsCJEU judgment: Case C-453/15 A and B (8/12/2016) The preliminary question in this case arose in a German criminal case concerning VAT evasion in relation to emissions trading. The Court, which ruled on the concept of ‘similar rights’ for the first time, noted that the cases mentioned in Article 56(1)(a) largely corresponded to the sphere of IP rights, unlike GHG emissions. However, following the reasoning of AG Whatelet, the similarities between some or all of these rights and GHG emissions were noted. Reference was also made to the purpose of the VAT Directive (to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction resulting in double-taxation and avoid non-taxation). Additionally, The Court clarified, pointing to its earlier case law in RCI Europe (C‑37/08), that the underlying logic of EU provisions requires goods and services to be taxed to the maximum extent at the place of consumption. The inclusion of GHG emissions in the concept of ‘similar rights’ was taken to be in line with this purpose and logic. Water Framework Directive allows variable and fixed water pricingCJEU judgment: Case C-686/15 Vodoopskrba i odvodnja (7/12/2016) The Court noted that Directive 2000/60 is a framework directive, meaning that discretion is left to the Member States in implementation. It also referred to, in particular, Article 9 of the Directive, which states that Member States must take into account the principle of recovery of costs of water services, including environmental costs, and ensure that efficient use is incentivised in their water-pricing policies. Nonetheless, referring inter alia to the Commission Communication ‘Pricing policies for enhancing the sustainability of water resources (COM(2000) 477 final)’ and the EEA Report ‘Assessment of cost recovery through water pricing’, where having both a fixed and variable component in water pricing was found to be common practice in Member States, the Court did not consider the Croatian law inconsistent with this provision. Croatia joined the EU on 1 July 2013 and this case shows that its judges are beginning to pose questions to their Luxembourg colleagues about EU law. A similar question was asked on 15 June 2016 about the way to calculate the fees for the collection and transport of municipal waste in accordance with EU law (case C-335/16). More specifically, the CJEU was asked how Union citizens pay their municipal waste invoices, and whether the volume of the empty containers or of the refuse collected is decisive. The CJEU might very well explain again that this is a matter left largely to the Member States to decide. AG OpinionsAG: No exclusive external competence for parts of EU-Singapore FTAAG opinion: Opinion 2/15 Avis rendu en vertu de l’article 218, paragraphe 11, TFUE (21/12/2016) The AG considered that the provisions of the EUSFTA should be divided into several categories: those falling within the scope of the common commercial policy, aspects touching upon transport policy, provisions dealing with investment other than FDI, non-commercial aspects of IP rights, standards relating to social and environmental policy, and provisions on the conservation of marine resources under the fisheries policy. Considering the plurality of relevant policy areas, many of which are shared competences, the agreement could not possibly fall entirely under EU exclusive competence. After all, none of these aspects could be designated as ‘merely incidental’ or ‘extremely limited in scope’, according to Sharpston. Whereas the EU was, of course, found to enjoy exclusive competence in the areas of the agreement falling within the scope of the CCP, as well as the conservation of marine and biological resources under the CFP and the trade in rail and road transport services, a number of areas were considered shared. Specifically, the AG pointed to air and maritime transport services and transport by inland waterway, types of investment other than FDI (notably portfolio investment), government procurement in relation to transport services, non-commercial aspects of IP rights, and labour and environmental standards. Ultimately, the AG even suggested that Article 9.10.1 of the EUSFTA, which terminates bilateral agreements between certain Member States and Singapore, falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States. The conclusion was thus that the FTA should be considered a mixed agreement, to be adopted jointly by the EU and its Member States. This case has special relevance for trade policy in the EU, as the CJEU’s Opinion will be the final word on the division of external competences for concluding international trade deals. The AG’s Opinion is thus also interesting in light of the Commission’s earlier claim that the content of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada, containing an identical broad number of issues as present in the EUSFTA, falls entirely under EU exclusive competence. AG: REACH allows for export of illegally imported dangerous chemicalsAG opinion: Case C-535/15 Pinckernelle (21/12/2016) The AG recommended the Court to find that Article 5 of REACH Regulation 1907/2006 should be interpreted in such a way that, notably given the possibility of a rigorous application of the requirements enumerated in Articles 6, 7, 21, 23, and 126 of the Regulation, substances not registered in accordance with the relevant provisions of Title II may be exported out of the EU. If the CJEU follows this opinion, REACH would not stand in the way of exporting the hazardous substances that were illegally imported into the EU. The preliminary question asked by a German Court was whether export to a third state of chemicals unregistered at import into the EU amounts to an autonomous breach of Article 5 of the REACH regulation, separate from the compliance failure that occurred at import. In order to answer this question, the AG turned to an assessment of the meaning of ‘placed on the market’. in the REACH Regulation, which he interpreted, notably looking at different language versions and at Lucas Bergkamp’s explanations, as only meaning the EU internal market. A strict enforcement of Articles 5, 6, 7 and especially 126 of the REACH Regulation imposing penalties for non-compliance should, according to the AG, provide sufficient safeguards to prevent the opening of a door to ‘rogue importers’ wilfully breaching registration requirements. What happens outside the EU stays outside the EU, in other words. AG: Pleadings of parties and requests for preliminary rulings should be put on Court websiteAG Opinion: Case C-213/15 Commission v Breyer (21/12/2016) Also see: National CasesGerman Court rules on compatibility Atomic Energy Act with Basic LawGerman Constitutional Court judgment: 1 BvR 2821/11, 1 BvR 1456/12, 1 BvR 321/12 (6/12/2016) The Court’s ruling thus largely favoured the government, finding the measures mostly compatible with the German Basic Law, and consistent with the protection of legitimate expectations and of the principle of equality. However, the amendments relating to compensation should be instituted by 30 June 2018, subsequent to an agreement with the three parties involved, E.ON, RWE and Vattenfall. For more in-depth analysis of this important case, see Catherine Banet’s very interesting Blog Post on the topic. Also see: |
|
Joint declaration Commission, EP and Council on legislative priorities for 2017European Commission Press Release: A Union that delivers swifter and better results: Three Institutions sign Joint Declaration on the EU’s legislative priorities for 2017 Also see: Highlights from the EP plenary session of 12-15 DecemberEuropean Parliament press release: Plenary highlights: Sakharov Prize, railways, fundamental rights in the EU Also see: Trump appoints climate change sceptic Scott Pruitt as EPA chiefNew York Times: Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A. Also see: Summary of key Commission infringement decisions for DecemberEuropean Commission Fact Sheet: December infringements package: key decisions EU sets out Sustainable Development prioritiesEuropean Commission Press Release: Sustainable Development: EU sets out its priorities |
|
EU approves new rules on National Emissions CeilingsEuropean Commission Press Release: EU approves new rules for Member States to drastically cut air pollution Also see: |
|
Minutes from Commission meeting confirm US/Canadian pressure endocrine disruptorsEuractiv: New endocrine disruptor rules address your trade concerns, EU tells US, Canada This interesting read claims that the EU follows a precautionary rather than a risk based approach. It seems more correct to say that the EU follows a risk based approach, and should follow a precautionary approach where science cannot (yet) determine what the risks are. Whether the latter always happens in practice is doubted by some, notably in the EDC dossier. The topic was discussed again on 21 December 2016 in Brussels (see for instance http://www.edc-free-europe.org). |
|
Finland plans to become first country to completely ban coalHuffington post: Finland Is Set To Become The First Country To Ban Coal Power UK slashes Foreign Office climate change staffThe Guardian: UK slashes number of Foreign Office climate change staff |
|
The Commission’s Winter Package in focusEEB ‘Metamorphosis’: newsletter #82 The Commission’s winter package, though lauded for its increased ambition on energy efficiency, has also faced critique from many angles. For instance, it has been suggested that the renewable energy targets are extremely weak. A more credible target, which would be needed for meeting the 2 degrees climate goal, would be 35 rather than 27%, according to various commentators. It has also been put forward that a more ambitious 40% decrease in energy consumption would save the EU a large sum of money by reducing expensive fossil fuel imports. These concerns led to EEB Secretary General Jeremy Wates’ claim that Member States and the European Parliament should ‘shake up’ the winter package, and that ‘Europe can, and must, show the way forward to the rest of the world’. |
|
Commission decides against amending Birds, Habitats Regulations after fitness checkThe Guardian: Conservationists declare victory for wildlife as EU saves nature directives MEPs demand greater protection for EU citrus treesEuropean Parliament Press Release: Plant pests: MEPs call for tougher import checks to protect EU citrus trees New Plant Health Regulation enters into forceEuropean Commission Fact Sheet: New Plant Health Regulation: stringent rules for a better protection from plant pests Also see: |
|
EMIS Committee publishes draft reportEuropean Parliament Press Release: Car emissions: first committee findings and draft recommendations Also see: EP ENVI committee votes on review ETS, including shipping reformsEuropean Parliament Press Release: Environment MEPs for a stronger EU carbon market EU legal action against MS over dieselgateThe Guardian: Dieselgate: EC begins legal action against UK and other EU nations Four major global cities set to ban diesel cars from their centresThe Guardian: Four of world’s biggest cities to ban diesel cars from their centres |
|
26 January 2017Reminder Event: HELF/VMR Conference “Trade and Sustainability: CETA Dissected” Registration for Dutch speakers Venue: T.M.C. Asser Instituut, R.J. Schimmelpennincklaan 20-22 Time: 14:00-16:00 hrs Programme: Click here for more information |
27 January 2017Registration open Event: Trump’s World – The Trump Administration and International law Description: On 27 January 2017, the Asser Institute will host an event on the implications of a Trump presidency for international law. One part of the programme will focus on the Trump administration and climate change law, particularly the Paris Agreement. Venue: T.M.C. Asser Instituut, R.J. Schimmelpennincklaan 20-22 Time: 13.00 – 19.00 hrs (followed by reception) Click here to register Click here for more information |
Editors-in-ChiefWybe Th. Douma (Senior Researcher, T.M.C. Asser Instituut and Lecturer of Leonardo Massai (Senior Lecturer on International and EU Environmental Law, Catholic University of Lille) EditorsOlivier van Geel (T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague) Steffen van der Velde (Researcher, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague) |