Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T12:04:15.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental Protection Meets Security of Electricity Supply

Case C-411/17, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen ASBL v. Conseil des ministres, Court of Justice of the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2021

Ilina Cenevska
Ilina Cenevska*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, Ghent University (Belgium). Email: icenevska@yahoo.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This case comment explores the relationship between two intertwined objectives – ensuring security of electricity supply and environmental protection – in the context of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen ASBL v. Conseil des ministres. The analysis focuses on the application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Habitats Directive to the facts of the case, which concerns the extension by a ten-year period of the operation of two Belgian nuclear power stations (Doel 1 and Doel 2) as part of a national energy policy strategy to ensure the security of Belgium's electricity supply. The case comment also considers the legal and practical implications that arise as a result of employing the ‘security of electricity supply’ exemption to enable derogation from the requirements of the aforementioned Directives in circumstances where a Member State considers the security of its electricity supply to be under threat.

Keywords

Security of electricity supplyEnvironmental protectionNuclear energyEnvironmental impact assessmentHabitats protectionNatura 2000
Type
Case Comment
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , July 2021 , pp. 365 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 European Commission, ‘The European Green Deal’, COM (2019) 640 final, 11 Dec. 2019, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN.

2 The ‘European Green Deal’ Communication makes no mention of nuclear energy while the subsequent draft proposal for a ‘Regulation establishing the Just Transition Fund (JTF)’, mandated by the European Green Deal, excludes the decommissioning or construction of nuclear power stations from the scope of the support envisaged under the JTF; see Council of the European Union, ‘Regulation establishing the Just Transition Fund: Partial Mandate for Negotiations with the European Parliament’, 2020/0006 (COD), 25 June 2020, draft Art. 5, available at: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8502-2020-REV-1/en/pdf. In contrast, a recent Commission preparatory document based on reports from the Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance, concerning the introduction of an EU Taxonomy & EU Green Bond Standard, did not completely dismiss nuclear power from the EU's pool of viable energy sources; see ‘Frequently Asked Questions about the Work of the European Commission and the Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance on EU Taxonomy & EU Green Bond Standard’, June 2020, p. 13, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/200610-sustainable-finance-teg-taxonomy-green-bond-standard-faq_en.pdf.

3 Case C-411/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:622.

4 See n. 14 below.

5 Lisbon (Portugal), 13 Dec. 2007, in force 1 Dec. 2009, [2010] OJ C 83/47, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:326:FULL:EN:PDF.

6 Art. 191(1) TFEU.

7 [2012] OJ L 26/1.

8 [1992] OJ L 206/7 (as amended by Directive 2013/17/EU [2013] OJ L 158/193).

9 In Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, the CJEU consistently used the term ‘security of electricity supply’, whereas Advocate General (AG) Kokott, in her Opinion, predominantly employed the term ‘energy security’ when speaking about ‘security of electricity supply’. Such practice is not uncommon, as both scholars and relevant international bodies have adopted this lexical approach; see Speight, J., Natural Gas: A Basic Handbook (Gulf Professional/Elsevier, 2019)Google Scholar; Strambo, C., Månsson, M. Nilsson & A., ‘Coherent or Inconsistent? Assessing Energy Security and Climate Policy Interaction within the European Union’ (2015) 8 Energy Research & Social Science, pp. 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, B.G., Clean Coal Engineering Technology (Elsevier, 2011)Google Scholar; IEA, ‘Energy Security: Reliable, Affordable Access to All Fuels and Energy Sources’, available at: https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-security.

10 UNDP, World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability (UNDP, 2000), available at: https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment-energy/sustainable_energy/world_energy_assessmentenergyandthechallengeofsustainability.html.

11 IEA, n. 9 above.

12 E.g., Sovacool considers technical feasibility, affordability, environmental protection, reliability and security of supply as constituent elements of energy security: Sovacool, B.K., ‘Coal and Nuclear Technologies: Creating a False Dichotomy for American Energy Policy’ (2007) 40(2) Policy Sciences, pp. 101–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Art. 194(1) TFEU.

14 Loi du 28 juin 2015 modifiant la loi du 31 janvier 2003 sur la sortie progressive de l’énergie nucléaire à des fins de production industrielle d’électricité afin de garantir la sécurité d'approvisionnement sur le plan énergétique [Law of 28 June 2015 amending the Law of 31 January 2003 on the Progressive Phasing Out of Nuclear Energy for the Purposes of the Industrial Production of Electricity in order to Ensure Security of the Energy Supply], Moniteur belge of 6 July 2015, p. 44423.

15 Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, para. 2. There are currently seven nuclear reactors in the Kingdom of Belgium: four in the Flemish Region at Doel (Doel 1, Doel 2, Doel 3, and Doel 4), and three in the Walloon Region at Tihange (Tihange 1, Tihange 2, and Tihange 3) (ibid., para. 44).

16 Para. 1.

17 Espoo (Finland), 25 Feb, 1991, in force 10 Sept. 1997, available at: https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/eia.htm.

18 Aarhus (Denmark), 25 June 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001, available at: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.html.

19 [2010] OJ L 20/7 (as amended by Directive 2013/17/EU [2013] OJ L 158/193).

20 Para. 37.

21 Paras 36, 37.

22 Para. 38.

23 Paras 39 et seq.

24 Para. 56.

25 Species of jawless fish characterized by a long eel-like body without scales.

26 Para. 135; Opinion of AG Kokott in Case C-411/17, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen ASBL v. Conseil des ministers, ECLI:EU:C:2018:972 (delivered on 29 Nov. 2018), paras 24-6.

27 Para. 81; AG Kokott Opinion, para 27.

28 AG Kokott Opinion, paras 24, 25.

29 Question 6 (para. 58).

30 Question 8 (para. 58).

31 T. Jakstas, ‘What Does Energy Security Mean?’, in M. Tvaronavičienė & B. Ślusarczyk (eds), Energy Transformation towards Sustainability (Elsevier, 2019), pp. 99–112.

32 L. Chester, ‘Conceptualising Energy Security and Making Explicit its Polysemic Nature’ (2010) 38(2) Energy Policy, pp. 887–95.

33 For practical reasons elaborated in the introduction, this article uses the terms ‘energy security’ and ‘security of energy supply’ interchangeably.

34 Speight, n. 9 above, p. 365.

35 UNDP, n. 10 above.

36 IEA, n. 9 above.

37 A. Cherp & J. Jewell, ‘The Three Perspectives on Energy Security: Intellectual History, Disciplinary Roots and the Potential for Integration’ (2011) 3(4) Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, pp. 202–12.

38 Strambo, Nilsson & Månsson, n. 9 above, p. 2.

39 Cherp & Jewell, n. 37 above.

40 Miller, n. 9 above, p. 607.

41 IEA, n. 9 above.

42 Sovacool has identified 45 different definitions of energy security expressed in legislation, documents from public organizations and by academics. Some of these definitions contain a reference to environmental protection or sustainability. E.g., the International Atomic Energy Agency has described energy security as comprising ‘the secure supply of energy fuels as well as imports and technologies that promote self-sufficiency as well as protection against disruptions … and improve environmental sustainability’ (emphasis added); the World Economic Forum considers energy security to encompass, inter alia, the notion of ‘sustainability, or sufficient supply or energy to support a high quality of life without damaging the environment’ (emphasis added): B.K. Sovacool, ‘Introduction: Defining, Measuring, and Exploring Energy Security’, in B.K. Sovacool (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Energy Security (Routledge, 2011), pp. 3–6.

43 Sovacool, n. 12 above.

44 Sovacool, n. 42 above, p. 10.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid., p. 11.

47 Strambo, Nilsson & Månsson, n. 9 above, p. 2.

48 Arts 194(1) and 191(1) TFEU.

49 Para. 71.

50 Para. 95.

51 Emphasis added.

52 Paras 96, 101.

53 Para. 97.

54 Para. 98.

55 Para. 100.

56 Para. 101 (emphasis added).

57 Para. 102.

58 Opinion of AG Kokott, para. 163 (emphasis added).

59 Ibid.

60 AG Kokott indicated in her Opinion (para. 24) that the location of the nuclear power stations is adjacent landside to the Natura 2000 site ‘Schorren en Polders van de Beneden-Schelde’. In that location, she further specified, the Scheldt is part of the Belgian Natura 2000 site ‘Schelde- en Durmeëstuarium van de Nederlandse grens tot Gent’ and the Dutch Natura 2000 site ‘Westerschelde & Saeftinghe’. She noted that the Belgian Natura 2000 site ‘Bos- en heidegebieden ten oosten van Antwerpen’ is also in the vicinity.

61 Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, para. 135. As observed by AG Kokott, in the two protected areas that cover the river Scheldt there are several fish species found which are listed in Annex II to the Habitats Directive (AG Kokott Opinion, para. 26).

62 Para. 136. The CJEU made statements to this effect in C-98/03, Commission v. Germany, ECLI:EU:C:2006:3, paras 44, 51; C-142/16, Commission v. Germany, ECLI:EU:C:2017:301, para. 29.

63 AG Kokott noted that in the Belgian site ‘Schelde- en Durmeëstuarium van de Nederlandse grens tot Gent’ there are 350 hectares of the priority habitat type ‘Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior’ and a smaller presence of the priority habitat type ‘Species-rich Nardus grasslands’. She remarked that the same priority habitat types also occur in the Belgian site ‘Bos- en heidegebieden ten oosten van Antwerpen’ (AG Kokott Opinion, para. 25).

64 AG Kokott Opinion, para. 191.

65 Para. 122. The CJEU had already applied this approach in C-127/02, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging, ECLI:EU:C:2004:482, paras 23, 24, 26; C-600/12, Commission v. Greece, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2086, para. 75; C-293/17 and C-294/17, Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment, ECLI:EU:C:2018:882, para. 60.

66 Para. 132 (emphasis added).

67 Para. 133. The CJEU had previously confirmed this in C-182/10, Solvay and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2012:82, para. 69.

68 Emphasis added.

69 Para. 146.

70 Some of these cases include C-441/17, Commission v. Poland (Białowieża Forest), ECLI:EU:C:2018:255; C-387/15 and C-388/15, Orleans and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2016:583; C-399/14, Grüne Liga Sachsen, ECLI:EU:C:2016:10; C-164/17, Grace and Sweetman, ECLI:EU:C:2018:593; C-521/12 T.C. Briels, ECLI:EU:C:2014:330; C-43/10, Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi Aitoloakarnanias, ECLI:EU:C:2012:560.

71 Para. 147. The CJEU had previously declared this in Commission v. Poland (Białowieża Forest), ibid., para. 189; Orleans and Others, ibid., para. 60.

72 Para. 150.

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid. The Court stated this in Commission v. Poland (Białowieża Forest), n. 70 above, para. 191; C-404/09, Commission v. Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2011:768, para. 109; Grüne Liga Sachsen, n. 70 above, para. 57.

75 Para. 151.

76 Para. 153. To that effect see Commission v. Poland (Białowieża Forest), n. 70 above, para. 113; Grace and Sweetman, n. 70 above, para. 40.

77 Para. 154.

78 Para. 155. For the same pronouncement see Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi Aitoloakarnanias, n. 70 above, para. 121.

79 Para. 156.

80 Para. 157 (emphasis added).

81 Para. 159 (emphasis added).

82 Emphasis added. Although Art. 6(4) uses the term ‘public safety’, here the CJEU uses ‘public security’ as synonymous with ‘public safety’, as does AG Kokott in her Opinion (paras 186, 188, 189, 190).

83 Para. 158. As concerns the ‘security of electricity supply’ qualifying as public security grounds for the purposes of Art. 6(4), the Court was faced with a similar issue in Commission v. Spain, n. 74 above. The case involved the operation of open-cast coal mines authorized by the Spanish authorities, located in or in the immediate vicinity of protected habitats where, inter alia, species of brown bear and subspecies of capercaillie are present (ibid., paras 25–7). As the brown bear is a priority species, the issue was brought within the ambit of the second subparagraph of Art.6(4) (ibid., para. 194). Spain justified proceeding with the mining operations by invoking ‘security of supply, the maintenance of employment and the definitive character of the authorizations, and proposals for measures to improve the habitat of the brown bear’ as imperative reasons of major public interest (ibid., para. 193, emphasis added). In contrast to Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, the Court did not view any of the considerations raised by Spain, including that relating to security of supply, as falling within the ‘public safety’ derogation provided in Art. 6(4) (ibid., paras 193–5).

84 AG Kokott Opinion, paras 24–6, 191.

85 Para. 159.

86 AG Kokott Opinion, paras 186 and 188 (emphasis added).

87 Ibid., para. 189.

88 Ibid., para. 191.

89 Ibid., para. 191. Interestingly, the CJEU did not follow this up in the judgment.

90 Ibid., para. 192.

91 Ibid., para. 192 (emphasis added). While acknowledging the prerogative of Member States to take steps to ensure the minimum supply in their territory, AG Kokott suggested that it would not be unreasonable to refer the Member States, in pursuing ‘the general interest in security of supply, to the possibility of importing electrical energy’ (ibid., para. 193 (emphasis added)).

92 Para. 182.

93 Ibid.

94 Ibid.

95 Constitutional Court of Belgium (Cour constitutionnelle), Arrêt n° 34/2020 du 5 mars 2020 en cause: Le recours en annulation de la loi du 28 juin 2015 « modifiant la loi du 31 janvier 2003 sur la sortie progressive de l’énergie nucléaire à des fins de production industrielle d’électricité afin de garantir la sécurité d'approvisionnement sur le plan énergétique », introduit par l'ASBL « Inter-Environnement Wallonie » et l'ASBL « Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen », available at: https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2020/2020-034f.pdf (in French).

96 Constitutional Court of Belgium judgment, Sections B.32(2) and B.33(1).

97 Section B.30(1).

98 Section B.31(1) (referring to para. 182 of the Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL judgment).

99 Section B.31(1).

100 While this possibility was not explored by the CJEU, it was indeed suggested by AG Kokott (para. 193, and see n. 91 above).

101 Section B.31(4). The Belgian Constitutional Court pointed out that several neighbouring countries had already decided or planned to close their nuclear and/or coal-fired power plants, thereby limiting their capacity to export electricity.

102 Section B.32(1).

103 Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, paras 148, 150. Prior to this effect, see Commission v. Poland (Białowieża Forest), n. 70 above, para. 191; Commission v. Spain, n. 74 above, para. 109; Grüne Liga Sachsen, n. 70 above, para. 57.

104 The European Commission Notice ‘Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive’ (2019/C 33/01) is a guidance document which details the steps necessary for a correct application of Art. 6 Habitats Directive, including the requirements on the general content of compensatory measures and the criteria to be followed for their design and adoption (pp. 38–53). Equally, for a more extensive scholarly discussion of the nature of the Art. 6(4) compensatory measures as instruments for offsetting biodiversity loss see McGillivray, D., ‘Compensating Biodiversity Loss: The EU Commission's Approach to Compensation under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive’ (2012) 24(3) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 431–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bonneuil, C., ‘Tell Me Where You Come From, I Will Tell You Who You Are: A Genealogy of Biodiversity Offsetting Mechanism in Historical Context’ (2015) 192 Biological Conservation, pp. 485–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clutten, R. & Tafur, I., ‘Are Imperative Reasons Imperiling the Habitats Directive? An Assessment of Article 6(4) and the IROPI Exception’, in Jones, G. (ed.), The Habitats Directive: A Developer's Obstacle Course (Hart, 2012)Google Scholar; Lapeyre, R., Froger, G. & Hrabanski, M., ‘Biodiversity Offsets as Market-Based Instruments for Ecosystem Services? From Discourse to Practices’ (2015) 15 Ecosystem Services, pp. 125–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Constitutional Court of Belgium judgment, n. 95 above, Section B.23(1).

106 On the effectiveness of compensatory measures and whether loss of habitat can ever be fully offset, see Morris, R. et al. , ‘The Creation of Compensatory Habitat: Can It Secure Sustainable Development?’ (2006) 14(2) Journal of Nature Conservation, pp. 106–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Salzman, J. & Ruhl, J.B., ‘Currencies and the Commodification of Environmental Law’ (2000) 53(3) Stanford Law Review, pp. 607–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 AG Kokott elevates it to a ‘fundamental right under Article 194(2) TFEU [for Member States] to determine themselves the choice between different energy sources and the general structure of their energy supply’ (AG Kokott Opinion, para. 184).