Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How to stand up for clean air: a practitioner’s view on air quality litigation

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

The right to an air quality plan is recognised by the Janecek judgement of the Court of Justice. However, if a claimant brings an action to a domestic court and argues for an injunction that would require the competent public entity to draw up an air quality plan, the national judge is confronted with various legal issues. General EU law questions may be raised which concern EU competence, legal bases, the Air Quality Directive, air quality plans, limit values of NOx and PM 10, individual rights, court remedies and the principle of effectiveness. Furthermore, domestic judges have to use traditional categories of admissibility (administrative act, standing and administrative silence) in the light of EU law. Deciding on the merits is a challenge as well. Here, the domestic judge has to take into account the discretion of the administration when issuing an order against public administration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A free and easy-to-access overview on current lawsuits and judgements in different Member States is provided by “Clean Air” [2].

  2. Case C-237/07 Janecek [2008] ECR I-06221.

  3. German case law on air quality plans is illustrated by Doerig [5].

  4. In public debate one may speak of a “right to clean air” as environmental NGOs often do, cf. ClientEarth [3], p. 6.

  5. Administrative Law Judge.

  6. Particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and ground-level ozone, are now generally recognised as the three pollutants that most significantly affect human health, EEA [7].

  7. “Court fixed penalty payments against public entities” reflect the recent situation in German air quality cases, Administrative Court Munich [1].

  8. Case 26/62 van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1.

  9. Article 4 (2) (e) TFEU in conjunction with Article 2 (2) TFEU.

  10. Parliament and Council Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe [2008] OJ L151/2.

  11. Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management [1996] OJ L 296/55.

  12. Doerig [5], p. 2.

  13. Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199; see Fischer/Keller [9], Kapitel 13, Rn. 888.

  14. PM 10 stands for particulate matter with a diameter of \(10~\upmu\mbox{m}\) or less.

  15. EEA [8], p. 32, box 5.1.

  16. Cf. Annex XI of the Air Quality Directive: “Limit values for the protection of human health”.

  17. Case C-237/07 Janecek [2008] ECR I-06221.

  18. Case C-59/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR-I 2626, para. 22.

  19. Case C-404/13 ClientEarth, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2382.

  20. UK Supreme Court (2015) R (on the application of Client Earth) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 28, on appeal from [2012] EWCA Civ 897.

  21. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (1988) 38 ILM 517 (1999).

  22. C-240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupeni, ECLI:EU:C:2011:125, para. 30.

  23. C-240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupeni, ECLI:EU:C:2011:125, para. 52.

  24. Case 33/76 Rewe [1976] ECR 1989, para. 5.

  25. Thorson [13], p. 23.

  26. See for an overview (EU, MS, US) Seerden [11].

  27. Concept and meaning of Administrative Act in Germany: Singh [12], p. 32.

  28. In some Member States this tradition seems still to be important, at least when it comes to the daily practise of serving administrative justice.

  29. An overview is given by Eliantonio [6].

  30. Keller [10], p. 69 (70): “suffisamment proche”.

  31. Eliantonio [6].

  32. Article 2 Nr. 5 Aarhus Convention.

  33. Article 2 Nr. 5 Aarhus Convention.

  34. Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 5 September 2013—7 C 21/12, available at: http://www.bverwg.de/entscheidungen/entscheidung.php?ent=050913U7C21.12.0.

  35. In the context of the Aarhus Convention: Darpö [4], p. 37.

  36. Administrative Courts of Munich and Wiesbaden [1].

References

  1. Administrative Court Munich: Decision of 21 June 2016 – M 1 V 15. 5203 – in: Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 2016, 1133. A similar decision which is translated into English: Administrative Court Wiesbaden, Decision of 11 January 2016 – 4 N 1727/15.WI(2) –. Available at: http://www.legal.cleanair-europe.org/legal/germany/lawsuits-and-decisions.AnalyticalStudies/2013_A2J_Synthesis_report_Final.pdf

  2. “Clean Air”, joint project of environmental NGOs. Air quality litigation is listed at: www.legal.cleanair-europe.org/your-right

  3. ClientEarth, Andrews, A.: The Clean Air Handbook. A practical guide to EU air quality law, Version 2.0, Available at: http://www.clientearth.org/reports/20140515-clientearth-air-pollution-clean-air-handbook.pdf

  4. Darpö, J.: Effective Justice? Synthesis report of the study on the Implementation of Articles 9.3 and 9.4 of the Aarhus Convention in the Member States of the European Union. Available at: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/a.to.j/

  5. Doerig, H.: The German courts and European air quality plans. J. Environ. Law 26(1), 139 (2014). Available at: http://www.doerig.de/veroeffentlichungen/24.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Eliantonio, M., et al.: Standing up for Your Right(s) in Europe, a Comparative Study on Legal Standing (Locus Standi) Before the EU and Member States’ Courts. Intersentia, Cambridge (2013). Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2012/462478/IPOL-JURI_ET(2012)462478_EN.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  7. European Environmental Agency (EEA): Air pollution. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/intro

  8. European Environmental Agency (EEA): EEA Report No 5/2015, air quality in Europe—2015 report. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2015

  9. Fischer, H.G., Keller, M., Ott, M., Quarch, M.: EU-Recht in der Praxis. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Keller, M.: In: Renaudie, O. (ed.) L’Intérêt à Agir Devant le Juge Administratif, Sous la Direction de Olivier Renaudie. Au Fil du Débat, p. 69. Berger-Levrault, Paris (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Seerden, R. (ed.): Administrative Law of the European Union its Member States and the United States, 3rd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Singh, M.P.: German Administrative Law in Common Law Perspective. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol. 149. Springer, Berlin (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Thorson, B.: Individual Rights in EU Law. Springer, Berlin (2016)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Verwaltungsgericht Aachen, Adalbertsteinweg 92, 52070, Aachen, Germany

    Matthias Keller

Authors
  1. Matthias Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Keller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keller, M. How to stand up for clean air: a practitioner’s view on air quality litigation. ERA Forum 17, 437–447 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-016-0442-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-016-0442-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation