Judgment of the Court Third Chamber of 20 May 2021, X Véhicules-citernes GPL, C-120/19

• Date: 20 May 2021
• Year: 2021

14

Norwegian asylum system provides for a level of protection for asylum seekers equivalent to that

under EU law, that fact cannot lead to a different conclusion. First, it is clear from the wording of the

provisions of the Procedures Directive that currently, a third State cannot be treated in the same way

as a Member State for the purpose of applying the ground of inadmissibility in question. Second, such

treatment cannot depend, on the risk of affecting legal certainty, on an assessment of the specific

level of protection of asylum seekers in the third State concerned .

VI. TRANSPORTS

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2021, X (Véhicules-citer nes GPL),

C-120/19

Link to the complete text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Inland transport of dangerous goods – Directive 2008/68/EC –

Article 5(1) – Concept of ‘construction requirement’ – Prohibition on laying down more stringent

construction requirements – Authority of a Member State requiring a service station to be supplied with

liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) only from road tankers fitted with a particular heat-resistant lining not

provided for by the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by

Road (AD R) – Unlawfulness – Decision legally unchallengeable by a category of persons – Strictly limited

possibility of obtaining the annulment of such a decision where there is clear conflict with EU law –

Principle of legal certainty – Principle of effectiveness

X, a Netherlands res ident living in the vicinity of a service station which sells, inter alia, liquefied

petroleum gas (LPG), wishes to put an end to that sale on grounds of safety. She therefore requested

the College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Purmerend (Board of the Mayor and

Aldermen of the municipality of Purmerend, Netherlands) to withdraw the environmental licence

issued to that service station. Although it rejected that request, the Board took a decision by which it

imposed two additional requirements on that service station regarding the way it is supplied with

LPG. One of those requirements provides that that supply must henceforth be carried out solely by

road tankers that are fitted with a particular heat -resistant lining capable of delaying the ‘boiling liquid

expanding vapour explosion’ scenario by at least 75 minutes after the star t of a fire.

Taking the view that the additional requirements imposed by the administrative decision should be

annulled on the ground that they could not be implemented because they were incompatible with

Directive 2008/68,

25

X brought an action before the rechtbank Noord-Holland (Dis trict Court, North

Holland, Netherlands). After that action was dismissed, X brought an appeal before the Raad van

State (Council of State, Netherlands).

In those circumstances , that court stayed the proceedings in order to refer questions to the Court on

the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/68.

26

First, it asks whether that provision precludes

a requirement such as that relating to the particular heat-resistant lining at issue. Second, it seeks to

25

Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on the inland transport of dange rous goods (OJ

2008 L 260, p. 13), as amended by Commission Directive 2014/103/EU of 21 November 2014 (OJ 2014 L 335, p. 15).

26

Under that provision, ‘Member States may on grounds of transport safety appl y more stringent provis ions, with the exception of

construction requirements, concerning the national transport of dangerous goods by ve hicles, wagons and inland waterway vesse ls

registered or put into circulation within their territory’.