The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has found France in breach of EU limits on nitrogen dioxide, which are connected with fumes from diesel engines, since 2010
In 2014, the European Commission initiated infringement proceedings against France because they believed that France had excessively exceeded their annual nitrogen dioxide limit values in many zones of the French territory from the 1 January 2010. It argued that although France had adopted plans relating to air quality and/or measures aimed at reducing nitrogen dioxide emissions, it had failed to meet its obligation to ensure that the exceedance period would be as short as possible (laid down in Article 23 of the Air Quality Directive).
France does not dispute the fact that there have been persistent exceedances of the hourly and annual limit values of nitrogen dioxide in the zones and agglomerations which are the subject of the action brought by the Commission. However, France disputes the allegedly systematic nature of those exceedances.
The Court has rejected all explanations put forward by the French government on why it has delayed action to tackle harmful levels of NO2 across the country that breached EU laws.
One of the arguments used by the government was that tracking illegal levels of NO2 required complex structural changes that were both costly and time-consuming and had invoked socio-economic difficulties. The Court, in refusing to accept the argument said, ‘Technical or structural difficulties, cannot be used by a country as a reason for fulfilling its legal obligation to protect human health.’
The Court has also highlighted that these legal limits had been introduced over nine years ago and that French authorities are not planning to reduce air pollution to within those limits in certain areas before 2030.
The Court pointed out that the fact that a Member State exceeds nitrogen dioxide limit values in ambient air does not, in itself, suffice for a finding that it has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 23 of the directive. Nevertheless, according to the directive, although Member States have some discretion in determining the measures to be adopted, those measures must, in any event, enable the exceedance period to be kept as short as possible.
The Court, however, found that France manifestly did not adopt, in a timely manner, appropriate measures to ensure that the exceedance period would be kept as short as possible. Thus, the exceedance of the limit values at issue during seven consecutive years remained systematic and persistent in that Member State, notwithstanding France’s obligation to take all appropriate and effective measures to comply with the requirement that the exceedance period be kept as short as possible.
Click here for the decision.