Case C‑61/21

JP

v

Ministre de la Transition écologique
and
Premier ministre

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles)

 Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 22 December 2022

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directives 80/779/EEC, 85/203/EEC, 96/62/EC, 1999/30/EC and 2008/50/EC – Air quality – Limit values for microparticles (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – Exceeded – Air quality plans – Damage caused to an individual on account of deterioration of the air resulting from the exceedance of those limit values – Liability of the Member State concerned – Conditions for establishing that liability – Requirement that the rule of EU law infringed be intended to confer rights on the individuals who have been harmed – No such intention)

1.        Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Identification of the relevant aspects of EU law – Reformulation of the questions

(Art. 267 TFEU)

(see paragraph 34)

2.        EU law – Rights conferred on individuals – Infringement by a Member State – Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals – Conditions – Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Meaning – Directives obliging, first, Member States to ensure that limit values of pollutants in the air are not exceeded and, second, to provide appropriate measures in the event that those limit values are exceeded – Not included – Possibility for the individuals directly concerned to require the competent national authorities to adopt the measures required under those directives – Irrelevant

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/50, Arts 13(1) and 23(1); Council Directive 80/779, Arts 3 and 7; Council Directive 85/203, Arts 3 and 7; Council Directive 96/62, Arts 7 and 8; Council Directive 1999/30, Arts 4(1) and 5(1))

(see paragraphs 43-62, 65, operative part)

Résumé

In an action brought before the tribunal administratif de Cergy-Pontoise (Administrative Court, Cergy-Pontoise, France), JP, a resident in part of the agglomeration of Paris, sought, inter alia, compensation from the French Republic for damage related to the deterioration of his health alleged to have been caused by the deterioration of the ambient air quality that agglomeration. That deterioration resulted from exceedances of the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and microparticles (PM10) concentration limit values, fixed by Directive 2008/50 on ambient air quality, (1) owing to the failure of the French authorities to fulfil their obligations under Articles 13 (2) and 23 (3) of that directive.

His action having been dismissed on the ground, in essence, that the provisions relied on by him of Directive 2008/50 on ambient air quality do not confer any right on individuals to obtain compensation for any damage suffered as a result of the deterioration of air quality, JP brought an appeal against that judgment before the cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (Administrative Court of Appeal, Versailles, France).

Giving a ruling on a preliminary reference from that court, the Court of Justice, sitting as the Grand Chamber, clarifies the conditions under which a Member State incurs liability for damage caused to an individual by the deterioration of air quality as a result of the limit values for pollutants in the ambient air being exceeded.

Findings of the Court

First of all, the Court notes that Directive 2008/50 on ambient air quality, relied on by JP, entered into force on 11 June 2008, namely later, in part, than the damage to health that he alleges was caused, which began in 2003. Thus, in order to assess the potential liability on the part of the French Republic for the damage at issue, it considers it necessary to take into account not only the relevant provisions of that directive, but also those of the directives that preceded it (4) and which laid down analogous obligations.

Next, the Court recalls that the engagement of State liability by individuals requires three cumulative conditions to be satisfied, namely that: the rule of EU law infringed must be intended to confer rights on them; the infringement of that rule must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between that infringement and the loss or damage sustained by those individuals.

As regards the first condition requiring that the rule infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals, those rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by provisions of EU law, but also by reason of positive or negative obligations which those provisions impose in a clearly defined manner, whether on individuals, on the Member States or on the EU institutions. The breach of such positive or negative obligations by a Member State is liable to hinder the exercise of rights implicitly conferred on individuals by the provisions in question and thus to alter the legal situation which those provisions seek to establish for them. That is the reason why the full effectiveness of those rules and the protection of the rights that they confer require that individuals have the possibility of obtaining redress, irrespective of whether the provisions in question have direct effect, the quality of direct effect being neither necessary nor sufficient in itself for that first condition to be satisfied.

In the present case, Article 13(1) and Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 on ambient air quality, like the analogous provisions of the preceding directives, oblige Member States, in essence, first, to ensure that the levels of, inter alia, PM10 and NO2 do not exceed, in their respective territories and with effect from certain dates, the limit values set by those directives and, second, where those limit values are nonetheless exceeded, an obligation to provide for appropriate measures to remedy those exceedances, inter alia by means of air quality plans. It follows that those provisions lay down sufficiently clear and precise obligations as to the result to be achieved by Member States. However, those obligations pursue a general objective of protecting human health and the environment as a whole and it cannot be inferred that they implicitly confer rights on individuals, the breach of which would be capable of giving rise to a Member State’s liability for loss and damage caused to them. Therefore, the first of the three conditions, which are cumulative, for State liability to be incurred is not satisfied.

That finding cannot be altered as a result of the right that individuals are recognised as having, under the Court’s case-law, to require the national authorities, if necessary by bringing an action before the courts having jurisdiction, to adopt an air quality plan in the event that the limit values referred to in Directive 2008/50 and the previous directives are exceeded. That right, which stems in particular from the principle of effectiveness of EU law, effectiveness to which affected individuals are entitled to contribute by bringing administrative or judicial proceedings based on their own particular situation, does not mean that the obligations resulting from Article 13(1) and Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 and the analogous provisions of the earlier directives were intended to confer individual rights on interested persons, for the purpose of the first of the three conditions referred to above.

Having regard to all of those considerations, the Court concludes that Article 13(1) and Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 on ambient air quality, as well as the analogous provisions of the preceding directives, must be interpreted as meaning that they are not intended to confer rights on individuals capable of entitling them to compensation from a Member State under the principle of State liability for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of EU law attributable to that Member State.

1      Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).

2      Under Article 13(1) of that directive, ‘Member States shall ensure that, throughout their zones and agglomerations, levels of sulphur dioxide, PM10, lead, and carbon monoxide in ambient air do not exceed the limit values laid down in Annex XI’ and ‘in respect of nitrogen dioxide and benzene, the limit values specified in Annex XI may not be exceeded from the dates specified therein’.

3      Under Article 23(1) of the same directive, ‘where, in given zones or agglomerations, the levels of pollutants in ambient air exceed any limit value or target value, plus any relevant margin of tolerance in each case, Member States shall ensure that air quality plans are established for those zones and agglomerations in order to achieve the related limit value or target value specified in Annexes XI and XIV’.

4      Namely, Articles 3 and 7 of Council Directive 80/779/EEC of 15 July 1980 on air quality limit values and guide values for sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates (OJ 1980 L 229, p. 30), Articles 3 and 7 of Council Directive 85/203/EEC of 7 March 1985 on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide (OJ 1985 L 87, p. 1), Articles 7 and 8 of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (OJ 1996 L 296, p. 55), and Article 4(1) and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41).