INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
Celex Number62017CJ0058
ECLIECLI:EU:C:2018:19
Date18 January 2018
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)
Procedure TypeReference for a preliminary ruling
Docket NumberC-58/17

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

18 January 2018 (*1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances — Period 2013-2020 — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 3(h) — Concept of ‘process emissions sub-installation’ — Emissions stemming from the combustion of incompletely oxidised carbon — Liquid waste — Excluded)

In Case C‑58/17,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Administrative Court, Berlin, Germany), made by decision of 24 January 2017, received at the Court on 3 February 2017, in the proceedings

INEOS Köln GmbH

v

Bundesrepublik Deutschland,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of C.G. Fernlund, President of the Chamber, A. Arabadjiev and E. Regan (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: H. Saugmandsgaard Øe,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

INEOS Köln GmbH, by S. Altenschmidt and A. Sitzer, Rechtsanwälte,

the German Government, by T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents,

the European Commission, by A.C. Becker and C. Zadra, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3(h) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

2

The request has been made in the course of proceedings between INEOS Köln GmbH (‘INEOS’) and the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by the Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency), concerning the rejection of the application made by INEOS for a free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances (‘emission allowances’), in so far as that application concerns emissions stemming from the combustion of incompletely oxidised carbon contained in liquid waste.

Legal context

EU law

Directives 2003/87/EC and 2009/29/EC

3

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), as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 63) (‘Directive 2003/87’) provides, in Article 10a, headed ‘Transitional Community-wide rules for harmonised free allocation’, as follows:

‘1. By 31 December 2010, the Commission shall adopt Community-wide and fully-harmonised implementing measures for the allocation of the allowances …

The measures referred to in the first subparagraph shall, to the extent feasible, determine Community-wide ex-ante benchmarks so as to ensure that allocation takes place in a manner that provides incentives for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficient techniques, by taking account of the most efficient techniques, substitutes, alternative production processes, high efficiency cogeneration, efficient energy recovery of waste gases, use of biomass and capture and storage of CO2, where such facilities are available, and shall not provide incentives to increase emissions. …

11. Subject to Article 10b, the amount of allowances allocated free of charge under paragraphs 4 to 7 of this Article in 2013 shall be 80% of the quantity determined in accordance with the measures referred to in paragraph 1. Thereafter the free allocation shall decrease each year by equal amounts resulting in 30% free allocation in 2020, with a view to reaching no free allocation in 2027.

…’

4

According to recital 23 of Directive 2009/29:

‘Transitional free allocation to installations should be provided for through harmonised Community-wide rules (ex-ante benchmarks) in order to minimise distortions of competition within the Community. Those rules should take account of the most greenhouse gas and energy-efficient techniques, substitutes, alternative production processes, use of biomass, renewables and CO2 capture and storage. Any such rules should not give incentives to increase emissions … Those harmonised rules may also take into account emissions related to the use of combustible waste gases when the production of these waste gases cannot be avoided in the industrial process. In this respect, the rules may provide for allowances to be allocated for free to operators of installations combusting the waste gases concerned or to operators of the installations where these gases originate. …’

Decision 2011/278

5

By Decision 2011/278, the Commission established, pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87, the harmonised bases on which the Member States are required to calculate, for each year, the number of emission allowances allocated free of charge to each installation on their territory.

6

Recitals 1, 8, 12 and 32 of that decision state:

‘(1)

Article 10a of [Directive 2003/87] requires that the Community-wide and fully-harmonised implementing measures for the allocation of free emission allowances should, to the extent feasible, determine ex-ante benchmarks so as to ensure that the free allocation of emission allowances takes place in a manner that provides incentives for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficient techniques, by taking account of the most efficient techniques, substitutes, alternative production processes, high efficiency cogeneration, efficient energy recovery of waste gases, use of biomass and capture and storage of carbon dioxide, where such facilities are available, and should not provide incentives to increase emissions. …

(8)

For the determination of benchmark values, the Commission has used as a starting point the arithmetic average of the greenhouse gas performance of the 10% most greenhouse gas efficient installations in 2007 and 2008 for which data has been collected. In addition, the Commission has in accordance with Article 10a(1) of Directive [2003/87] analysed for all sectors for which a product benchmark is provided for in Annex I, on the basis of additional information received from several sources and on the basis of a dedicated study analysing most efficient techniques and reduction potentials at European and international level, whether these starting points sufficiently reflect the most efficient techniques, substitutes, alternative production processes, high efficiency cogeneration, efficient energy recovery of waste gases, use of biomass and capture and storage of carbon dioxide, where such facilities are available. …

(12)

Where deriving a product benchmark was not feasible, but greenhouse gases eligible for the free allocation of emission allowances occur, those allowances should be allocated on the basis of generic fallback approaches. A hierarchy of three fallback approaches has been developed in order to maximise greenhouse gas emission reductions and energy savings for at least parts of the production processes concerned. The heat benchmark is applicable for heat consumption processes where a measurable heat carrier is used. The fuel benchmark is applicable where non-measurable heat is consumed … For process emissions, emission allowances should be allocated on the basis of historical emissions. In order to ensure that the free allocation of emission allowances for such emissions provides sufficient incentives for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to avoid any difference in treatment of process emissions that are allocated on the basis of historical emissions and those within the system boundaries of a product benchmark, the historical activity level of each installation should be multiplied by a factor equal to 0.9700 to determine the number of free emission allowances.

(32)

It is also appropriate that the product benchmarks take account of the efficient energy recovery of waste gases and emissions related to their use. To this end, for the determination of the benchmark values for products of which the production generates waste gases, the carbon content of these waste gases has been taken into account to a large extent. Where waste gases are exported from the production process outside the system boundaries of the relevant product benchmark and combusted for the production of heat outside the system boundaries of a benchmarked process as defined in Annex I, related emissions should be taken into account by means of allocating additional emission allowances on the basis of the heat or fuel benchmark. In the light of the general principle that no emission allowances should be allocated for free in respect of any electricity production, to avoid undue distortions of competition on the markets for electricity supplied to industrial installations and taking into account the inherent carbon price in electricity, it is appropriate that, where waste gases are exported from the production process outside the system boundaries of the relevant product benchmark and combusted for the production of electricity, no additional allowances are allocated beyond the share of the carbon content of the waste gas accounted for in the relevant product benchmark.’

7

Article 3 of Decision 2011/278, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides:

‘For the purposes of this Decision...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
9 cases
  • Energieversorgungscenter Dresden-Wilschdorf GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 11 November 2021
    ...el rendimiento energético recurriendo a las técnicas más eficaces (véanse, en este sentido, las sentencias de 18 de enero de 2018, INEOS, C‑58/17, EU:C:2018:19, apartado 43 y jurisprudencia citada; de 12 de abril de 2018, PPC Power, C‑302/17, EU:C:2018:245, apartado 27, y de 21 de junio de ......
  • Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered on 18 June 2020.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 18 June 2020
    ...anzuwenden ist (vgl. Urteile vom 8. September 2016, Borealis u. a., C‑180/15, EU:C:2016:647, Rn. 61, sowie vom 18. Januar 2018, INEOS, C‑58/17, EU:C:2018:19, Rn. 28). In diesem Zusammenhang hat der Gerichtshof bereits darauf hingewiesen, dass sich die in Art. 3 des Beschlusses 2011/278 enth......
  • Aurubis AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 25 November 2021
    ...de «subinstalaciones con emisiones de proceso» solo representaba el último enfoque alternativo (sentencia de 18 de enero de 2018, INEOS, C‑58/17, EU:C:2018:19, apartado 58 Por lo tanto, incumbía a la DEHSt, antes de calificar una subinstalación como «subinstalación con emisiones de proceso»......
  • A.B. and Others v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa and Others.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 2 March 2021
    ...angeführte Rechtsprechung, sowie vom 4. Dezember 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality und Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, C‑378/17, EU:C:2018:19, Rn. 49 und die dort angeführte 149 Unter diesen Umständen und insbesondere in Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass der nationale Gesetzgeber kein ......
  • Get Started for Free