Reports of Cases

2008 I-09895

Subject-matter

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Conseil d’État (France) – Validity, in the light of the Community principle of equal treatment, of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) – Difference in treatment as between, on the one hand, installations in the steel sector subject to the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme laid down by the Directive and, on the other, the aluminium and plastic industries, which emit identical greenhouse gases and which are not subject to that system – Objective justification for that difference in treatment ?

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 174 -P2 : paragraph 30
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 175 -P1 : paragraph 7
• Directive 2003/87 -A01 : paragraphs 10, 28
• Directive 2003/87 -A04 : paragraph 12
• Directive 2003/87 -A06P1L1 : paragraph 13
• Directive 2003/87 -A09 : paragraph 14
• Directive 2003/87 -A10 : paragraph 15
• Directive 2003/87 -A16P3 : paragraph 16
• Directive 2003/87 -A30 : paragraphs 35, 62
• Directive 2003/87 -A30P2 : paragraph 17
• Directive 2003/87 -N1 : paragraph 43
• Directive 2003/87 -C5 : paragraph 29
• Directive 2003/87 -C25 : paragraph 35
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -17/61 : paragraph 39
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/71 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -114/76 : paragraph 47
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -117/76 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -124/76 : paragraph 48
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/81 : paragraph 58
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -245/81 : paragraph 47
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/83 : paragraph 58
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -250/83 : paragraph 39
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -331/88 : paragraph 59
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -133/93 : paragraph 23
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/93 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -122/95 : paragraphs 47, 48
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -284/95 : paragraph 58
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -364/95 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -157/96 : paragraph 30
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -462/99 : paragraph 39
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -86/03 : paragraph 59
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -96/03 : paragraph 59
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -535/03 : paragraph 47
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -313/04 : paragraph 23
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -504/04 : paragraph 59
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -14/06 : paragraph 30

Operative part

• Validates : Directive 2003/87

Opinion

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 12 : point 32
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 13 : point 32
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 174 : points 34, 49
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 175 -P1 : point 4
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 234 : point 21
  
• Treaty of Nice 2001 - Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice -A23 : point 21
  
• Directive 2003/87 -A01 : points 43, 50
  
• Directive 2003/87 -A04 : point 6
  
• Directive 2003/87 -A06 : points 16, 17
  
• Directive 2003/87 -A06P1 : point 15
  
• Directive 2003/87 -A10 : point 7
  
• Directive 2003/87 -A12 : point 7
  
• Directive 2003/87 -A30 : point 47
  
• Directive 2003/87 -N3 : point 57
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -73/63 : point 23
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -32/64 : point 37
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -16/65 : point 22
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -57/72 : point 54
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -78/74 : point 37
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -8/78 : point 42
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -12/78 : point 37
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -87/78 : point 22
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -145/79 : point 22
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -158/80 : point 22
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -50/82 : point 27
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -37/83 : point 45
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/83 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -179/84 : point 42
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -203/86 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -313/86 : point 22
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -265/87 : point 35
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -167/88 : point 35
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -267/88 : points 35, 37
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -331/88 : point 35
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -37/89 : point 22
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -63/89 : point 45
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -311/90 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -133/93 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/93 : point 34
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -306/93 : point 37
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -56/94 : point 42
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -84/94 : point 34
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -150/94 : point 34
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -193/94 : point 45
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -222/94 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -233/94 : points 45, 54
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -178/95 : point 21
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -183/95 : point 22
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -248/95 : point 34
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -284/95 : point 34
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -341/95 : point 34
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -352/95 : point 21
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -61/98 : point 22
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -166/98 : point 45
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -383/98 : point 22
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -402/98 : point 21
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -304/01 : point 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -236/02 : point 21
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -86/03 : point 34
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -273/04 : points 25, 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -221/05 : point 45
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -305/05 : point 21
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -390/06 : point 21
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 05/03/2007

Date of the Opinion

• 21/05/2008

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

16/12/2008

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 117 from 26.05.2007, p.8

Judgment: OJ C 44 from 21.02.2009, p.8

Name of the parties

Arcelor Atlantique and Lorraine and Others

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Cafarelli, François: Revue des affaires européennes 2007-08 p.793-804 (FR)
2. Broussy, Emmanuelle ; Donnat, Francis ; Lambert, Christian: Chronique de jurisprudence communautaire. Principe d'égalité et expérimentation législative, L'actualité juridique ; droit administratif 2009 p.245-246 (FR)
3. Simon, Denys: Contenu du principe d'égalité, Europe 2009 Février Comm. nº 56 p.14-15 (FR)
4. Sakon, Albéric: Chroniques. Secteur public, Concurrences : revue des droits de la concurrence 2009 nº 1 p.213-216 (FR)
5. Frenz, Walter: Juristenzeitung 2009 p.630-633 (DE)
6. Donnat, Francis: Principe d'égalité et mise en oeuvre expérimentale d'un système d'échanges de quotas d'émission de gaz à effet de serre: quel degré de contrôle pour la Cour de justice?, Revue juridique de l'Economie publique 2009 nº 664 p.22-24 (FR)
7. D'Auria, Marta: Il principio di uguaglianza e il mercato comunitario delle emissioni inquinanti, Giornale di diritto amministrativo 2009 p.955-959 (IT)
8. Banu, Mihai: Mediu. Prevenirea şi controlul integrat al poluării. Sistem de comercializare a cotelor de emisie de gaze cu efect de seră. Directiva 2003/87/CE. Domeniu de aplicare. Includerea instalaţiilor din sectorul siderurgic. Excluderea instalaţiilor din sectoarele chimiei şi metalelor neferoase. Principiul egalităţii de tratament, Revista românǎ de drept comunitar 2009 nº 04 p.171-179 (RO)
9. Frenz, Walter: Gleichheitssatz und Wettbewerbsrelevanz bei BVerfG und EuGH - Das Beispiel Emissionshandel, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 2010 p.223-228 (DE)
10. Jánošíková, Martina: Výber z rozhodnutí Súdneho dvora Európskych spoločenstiev 2010 nº 6 p.41-45 (SK)
11. Sanz Rubiales, Iñigo: El principio de igualdad en el mercado de emisiones: jurisdicción europea y jurisdicción interna - Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia, Gran Sala, de 16 de diciembre de 2008, As. C-127/07, Arcelor, Noticias de la Unión Europea 2010 nº 311 p.115-123 (ES)
12. Ferge, Zsigmond: A szerzői jog által védett zenei mű nyilvános wifihálózaton keresztül történő letöltésre való rendelkezésre bocsátásával kapcsolatos felelősség kérdéseinek tisztázása, Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle 2017 2. szám p.75-107 (HU)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Conseil d'État - France

Subject-matter

• Environment
  
• - Pollution
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  

Formation of the Court

grande chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

von Danwitz

Advocate General

Poiares Maduro

Language(s) of the Case

• French
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• French