Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62021TN0005

Case T-005/21: Action brought on 7 January 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v EEA

OJ C 88, 15.3.2021, p. 34–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

15.3.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/34

Action brought on 7 January 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v EEA

(Case T-005/21)

(2021/C 88/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt (Helvoirt, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gebruers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Environment Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the action for annulment of the decision of the European Environment Agency (EEA) as notified to the applicant by email of 9 November 2020 refusing to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) on the correct interpretation of the fifth point of Section C of Annex III to 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 (‘the Air Quality Directive’) admissible and well founded;

—

annul the contested decision;

—

refer the dossier back to the EEA so that it might yet refer the necessary questions to the Court on the correct interpretation of the provision referred to as requested by the applicant;

—

order the EEA to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23 of the Air Quality Directive and of Section C of Annex III to that directive, infringement of Article 267 TFEU, infringement of Articles 1 and 9 of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Aarhus Convention’), infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention, and infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 401/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network, in so far as the EEA refuses to refer the necessary questions to the Court on the correct interpretation of the Air Quality Directive.

—

Under the legal norms cited, the EEA was obliged to refer questions to the Court. The EEA’s course of action, and therefore the contested decision, are contrary to Articles 1 and 9 of the Aarhus Convention. By virtue of Article 1 of that convention, access to justice in environmental matters must be guaranteed at Community level.

—

The EEA specifically has the aim of providing objective, reliable and comparable information on the environment at European level on the basis of which the measures necessary for protecting the environment can then be taken. This means that the EEA must be able to give correct and legally binding advice on maximum distance from the kerbside as provided for in the fifth point of Section C of Annex III to the Air Quality Directive, which is not possible in this case without referring the necessary questions to the Court.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 47 and 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and infringement of Article 191 TFEU in so far as the EEA is standing in the way of the right to an effective remedy within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 267 TFEU in so far as the EEA instead of the Court ruled that the questions referred by the applicant manifestly do not require an answer.
Top