Advertisement

May 24, 2013

EU ETS to Cap Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled preliminarily that international aviation emissions can be regulated under the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which became effective on January 1, 2012.  The December 21, 2011, ruling in Case C-366/10 dates back to December 2009, when several U.S. airlines brought judicial review proceedings to enjoin the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) from implementing its decision to extend the EU ETS to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from airplanes.

In May 2010, the High Court of England and Wales referred the issue to the CJEU, which was asked to rule on the lawfulness of the decision.  Agreeing with the opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU, given in October 2011, the CJEU confirmed that the Aviation Emissions Directive did not infringe:

  • Customary international law, as EU regulators are entitled to permit air travel on the condition that operators comply with EU standards;
  • The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, as the EU is not a party to it;
  • The Kyoto Protocol, as the EU is not required to pursue the limitation or reduction of GHG emissions from aviation fuels, but rather, could seek to meet GHG emissions targets as it wished; and
  • The Open Skies Air Transport Agreement that the EU and U.S. signed in 2007, as the uniform application of the EU ETS to all flights departing from EU airports is consistent with the agreement, which prohibits discriminatory treatment between U.S. and EU operators.

Airline carriers with flights passing through EU airports will therefore be required to buy emissions allowances, if they have not been doing so already.  Initially, airlines will only be required to pay for 15 percent of their emissions, with 85 percent covered by free allowance, but airlines will be fined if they exceed their allocated quota of allowances.  

The case will now return to the High Court for the completion of the judicial review.  The U.S., China and India have indicated that they may mount a challenge against the CJEU’s ruling.  In addition, certain airlines have already threatened to boycott the requirement, while others have suggested that they will pass on the costs to their passengers.  The increase in costs for airlines could lead to a competitive disadvantage for European airlines.

© 2013 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Partner

Prajakt Samant is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP, based in its London office. His practice focuses primarily on representing banks, hedge funds and energy and commodity companies in a variety of transactional, cross-border regulatory, compliance and risk management matters in the energy sector. 

44 20 7577 6912

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.