Brussels, 21/12/2011 (Agence Europe) - The decision has been taken - there is no legal reason for the EU to change its climate legislation forcing non-EU airlines to buy EU carbon trading quotas (ETS quotas) from 1 January 2012 for flights to the EU or landing or taking off from the EU. US airlines appealed against the EU directive in question, which includes civil aviation in the EU's emissions trading scheme. The appeal was answered by a European Court of Justice ruling on 21 December in Case C-366/10, to the delight of supporters of the EU rules introduced in 2008 and people wanting to protect the climate (see EUROPE 10520). The ruling comes as no surprise because it confirms the legality of the EU rules (see separate article on the European Court of Justice), as recommended by the court's advocate-general and hailed by EU Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard and others. The sensitivity of the case and the potential fallout on diplomacy and trade in general, however, have led her to take a cautious line, expressing confidence that all parties would respect the rules of law.
In a press release, Connie Hedegaard said: “I am of course very satisfied to see that the Court clearly concluded that the EU directive is fully compatible with international law. A number of American airlines decided to challenge our legislation in court and thus abide by the rule of law. So now we expect them to respect European law. We reaffirm our wish to engage constructively with everyone during the implementation of our legislation.”
MEP Peter Liese (EPP, Germany), the EP's rapporteur for the directive, said he was delighted and had expected nothing less (see EUROPE 10520), pointing out that when the directive was being drawn up, precautions were taken to ensure it complied with international law and anyone appealing to the Court of Justice had to respect its rulings. He said he expected the United States and other plaintiffs to respect the ruling. Liese said he was certain that EU unity and ability to speak with one voice on the world stage had been put to the test by other countries and warned that if the EU were to give way, that would have disastrous consequences in other domains. The EU had the law on its side and had passed the legislation after years of debate, which would make it difficult to justify to ordinary people any backtracking because of pressure from the United States, China or elsewhere. He added that the EU must not let itself be led by the nose and must ensure application of its carbon emissions and climate protection legislation. Liese said the directive was quite flexible, allowing flight landing in the EU to be exempted from the carbon tax if a comparable system is in place in the country from which the plane took off.
Peter Liese said that if airlines were honest, they would admit that the estimated rise in the cost of a flight would be modest because airlines only have to pay 15% of the quota (one euro for a flight between Europe and the East coast of the USA or €2.30 for a flight between the EU and Shanghai), which is next to nothing compared with national taxes and charges. Under EU law, if non-EU airlines refuse to pay the carbon quotas, then the EU can refuse them the right to land or take off, but Liese told a news conference in Brussels that he hoped the last resort could be avoided. MEP Jo Leinen (S&D, Germany), who chairs the EP's environment committee, said it was simple. Airlines and ordinary people have to respect EU law and the United States started applying the brake at the UN climate change conference in Durban and must not now be allowed to hamstring effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Environment NGOs T&E (Transport and Environment) and WF are delighted with the European Court of Justice ruling, describing it as a “historic victory” for EU legislation to reduce pollution from aircraft and to tackle climate change.
The Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) disagree, arguing that the main problem is political, not legal, and it was for the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to solve the problem, rather than the European Court of Justice. (AN/transl.fl)