Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

Borealis Polyolefine GmbH v. Bundesminister fur Land- und Fortswirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft - (28 Apr 2016)

ECJ rules allowances under emissions scheme invalid

Environment

The European Court of Justice ruled invalid the maximum annual greenhouse emissions allowance determined by a European Commission decision in 2013.

The Court had received requests for preliminary ruling from several countries, including Austria and Italy. Questioned before court was a decision of the European Commission determining the correction factor for the allocation of permissible greenhouse gas emissions; specifically, whether the maximum annual allowances set therein were in consonance with the Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, which also provided a method for allocating allowances.

The Court noted, in the event of difference in language between provisions, the same would have to be taken into account considering its context and purpose. As such, Article 10(a)5 referred to emissions from installations that were to be included in the trading scheme only starting 2013. Since the Commission’s order considered such emissions to be part of the scheme from before 2013, the same deviated from the meaning in Article 10a(5) and was invalid.

The Court’s judgment granted 10 months in which the Commission could adopt remedial measures to comply with the ruling.

Tags : EUROPE   COMMISSION   GREENHOUSE   EMISSIONS   ALLOWANCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved