Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:04:44.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Importance of Setting a Target: The EU Ambition of a High Level of Protection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Delphine Misonne
Delphine Misonne*
Affiliation:
FNRS Research Associate, Saint-Louis University, Brussels (Belgium). Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The European Union (EU) aims to ensure a high level of environmental protection. This is a key message of primary EU law. This article explores the purpose and meaning of this explicit ambition. It deciphers its influence on case law and on judicial review of legislative and administrative discretion. It argues that the requirement goes beyond window dressing and that its added value lies both in supporting the legitimacy of bold decisions and in preventing a manifest dismissal of the requisites of environmental protection.

Although primarily focused on EU law and on its technicalities, the article may offer helpful insights to other transnational or federal systems. It may help to build a better understanding of some of the challenges facing any environmental law regime confronted with the sensitive issue of ‘ambition’.

Keywords

High level of protectionAmbitionEnvironmentHealthEuropean Union lawIntegration
Type
Articles
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , April 2015 , pp. 11 - 36
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to TEL’s anonymous reviewers for their perceptive comments. For more developments and materials on the issue, see also D. Misonne, Droit européen de l’environnement et de la santé, L’ambition d’un niveau élevé de protection (Anthemis, 2011).

References

1 Lisbon (Portugal), 13 Dec. 2007, in force 1 Dec. 2009, available at: http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text.

2 Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Léger in Case C-284/95, Safety Hi-Tech [1998] ECR I-4301, para. 67.

3 Ehlermann, C.D., ‘The Internal Market Following the Single European Act’ (1987) 24(3) Common Market Law Review, pp. 361–409Google Scholar, at 389.

4 L. Krämer, EC Environmental Law, 5th edn (Thomson/Sweet & Maxwell, 2003), p. 12.

5 N. 1 above.

6 Such as during the 2014 negotiations over the Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the period from 2020 to 2030: see Commission Communication, COM(2014)15, 22 Jan. 2014. The press coverage reported that targets were weaker than had been called for by many green campaigners as well as industrial sectors, but stronger than the alternatives that some Member States and Commissioners were championing up to the final stages of the negotiations: see The Guardian, 22 Jan. 2014, available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/22/eu-carbon-emissions-climate-deal-2030.

7 Such as pending Case T-429/13, Bayer CropScience v. Commission, not yet reported, challenging Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 485/2013 as regards the Conditions of Approval of the Active Substances Clothianidin, Thiamethoxam and Imidacloprid, and Prohibiting the Use and Sale of Seeds Treated with Plant Protection Products Containing those Active Substances [2013] OJ L 139/12.

8 M. Prieur & G. Sozzo (eds), La non régression en droit de l’environnement (Bruylant, 2012)Google Scholar.

9 Among which is the ‘REFIT – Fit for Growth’ process: see European Commission, ‘Commission Takes Ambitious Next Steps to Make EU Law Lighter’, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-891_en.htm. See also European Commission, High Level Group on Administrative Burdens, ‘Cutting Red Tape in Europe – Legacy and Outlook’ (Stoiber Report), 24 July 2014, with dissenting opinion, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/admin_burden/high_level_group_en.htm.

10 Vogel, D., The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States (Princeton University Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

11 Luxembourg (Luxembourg), 17 Feb. 1986, and the Hague (the Netherlands), 28 Feb. 1986, in force 1 July 1987, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:11986U/TXT&from=EN.

12 Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, Rome (Italy), 25 Mar. 1957, in force 1 Jan. 1958, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:11957E/TXT.

13 Gulmann, C., ‘The Single European Act: Some Remarks from a Danish Perspective’ (1987) 24(1) Common Market Law Review, pp. 31–40Google Scholar; Kahl, W., Umweltprinzip und Gemeinschaftrecht: Eine Untersuchung zur Rechtsidee des ‘bestmöglichen Umweltschutzes’ im EWG-Vertrag, vol. 17 (Ausburger Reschtsstudien, Müller, 1993)Google Scholar; Sevenster, H.G., Milieubeleid en Gemeenschapsrecht (Kluwer, 1992)Google Scholar, at pp. 20–2; V. Constantinesco et al., Traité instituant la CEE: Commentaire article par article (Economica, 1992), at p. 567.

14 Regarding the lead content of fuels see, e.g., Caballero, F., Essai sur la notion juridique de nuisance (Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1981)Google Scholar, at pp. 147–9.

15 They made other, much more demanding proposals, such as a selective veto where the proposed legislation should imperatively be formally accepted by the Member State that has the highest standard of protection. These proposals were rejected.

16 N. 11 above.

17 New Art. 100A EC, as inserted by Art. 18 SEA.

18 See Vandermeersch, D., ‘The Single European Act and the Environmental Policy of the European Economic Community’ (1987) 12(6) European Law Review, pp. 407–429Google Scholar, at 417; J.H. Weiler, ‘The Transformation of Europe’ (1990–91) 100 Yale Law Journal, pp. 2403–83, at 2460.

19 Pescatore, P., ‘Some Critical Remarks on the Single European Act’ (1987) 24 Common Market Law Review, pp. 9–18Google Scholar, at 18; Glaesner, H.J., ‘L’Acte Unique Européen’ (1986) 238 Revue du Marché Commun, pp. 307–321Google Scholar, at 312.

20 Krämer, n. 4 above, at p. 12. See also Krämer, L., ‘Das ‘Hohe Schutzniveau’ für die Umwelt in EG-Vertrag’ (1997) 6 Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht, pp. 303–308Google Scholar.

21 Art. 130R, §2 EC, as amended by the Treaty on European Union, Maastricht (the Netherlands), 7 Feb. 1992, in force 1 Nov. 1993, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:11992M/TXT.

22 Art. 130T EC, as introduced by the SEA.

23 Except for a series of exceptions, such as tax measures.

24 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992.

25 Art. 130R EC.

26 Arts 129 & 129A EC.

27 Art. 2 EC (‘a high level of employment’) and Art. 3 EC (‘a contribution to the attainment of a high level of health protection’).

28 Amsterdam (the Netherlands), 2 Oct. 1997, in force 1 May 1999, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:11997D/DCL.

29 Art. 100A EC, as amended by the ToA.

30 Weatherill, S., ‘Union Legislation Relating to the Free Movement of Goods’, in P. Oliver (ed.), Oliver on Free Movement of Goods in the European Union (Hart, 2010), p. 441Google Scholar, at 13.27.

31 Art. 100A EC.

32 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter), 26 Oct. 2012, [2012] OJ C 326/02, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf.

33 The Charter now holds the same legal value as the Lisbon Treaty. See Charter, ibid., Arts 35 (health), 37 (environment) and 38 (consumer).

34 Art. 3(3) TEU: ‘The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance’.

35 Art. 114(3) TFEU: ‘The Commission, in its proposals envisaged in paragraph 1 concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, will take as a base a high level of protection, taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts. Within their respective powers, the European Parliament and the Council will also seek to achieve this objective’.

36 Art. 191(2.1) TFEU: ‘Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay’.

37 Art. 168(1) TFEU: ‘A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities’.

38 Art. 169(1) TFEU: ‘In order to promote the interests of consumers and to ensure a high level of consumer protection, the Union shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers, as well as to promoting their right to information, education and to organise themselves in order to safeguard their interests’.

39 Art. 35 Charter: ‘Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all the Union’s policies and activities’.

40 Art. 37 Charter: ‘A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development’.

41 Art. 38 Charter: ‘Union policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection’.

42 The ECJ has its seat in Luxembourg (Luxembourg) and ensures that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of the Treaties. All cases are available at: http://curia.europa.eu.

43 The potential of the requirement was affirmed at an early stage by AG Cosmas, in his opinion in Case C-318/98, Fornasar [2000] ECR I-4788, para. 32.

44 Case C-233/94, Germany v. Parliament and Council [1997] ECR I-2405.

45 These grounds were based on articles that do not constitute the proper legal basis of the contested act. Former Arts 3(s) and 129A EC on consumer protection are mentioned, while the legal basis on which the legislation was adopted was actually the former Art. 57(2) EC on the taking up and pursuit of activities of self-employed persons.

46 Departing from the position of AG Léger, who considered that the objective of a high level of consumer protection laid down by Arts 3(s) and 129A EC was not the main objective pursued by the Directive ‘which cannot, therefore, be made subject to it’: Germany v. Parliament and Council, n. 44 above, paras 39 and 108.

47 Ibid., para. 48.

48 Safety Hi-Tech, n. 2 above; Case C-341/95, Bettati [1998] ECR I-4355.

49 Because it was the only decision to apply this concept in the environmental field at the time, it had a great impact. On the possibility of having ‘wrong cases at the wrong time’ see Lenaerts, K. & Corthaut, T., ‘Towards an Internally Consistent Doctrine on Invoking Norms of EU Law’, in S. Prechal & B. Van Roermund (eds), The Coherence of EU Law: The Search for Unity in Diverging Concepts (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 495–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 505.

50 Art. 130R EC.

51 Safety Hi-Tech, n. 2 above, para. 47; Bettati, n. 48 above, para. 45.

52 Vienna (Austria), 22 Mar. 1985, in force 22 Sept. 1988, available at: http://ozone.unep.org.

53 Montreal (Canada), 16 Sept. 1987, in force 1 Jan. 1989, available at: http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/montreal_protocol.php.

54 Safety Hi-Tech n. 2 above, para. 49; Bettati n. 48 above, para. 47.

55 As mentioned by Léger, the scholarship is unanimous in considering that a high level of protection does not mean the highest possible level of protection: Ph. Léger, Commentaire article par article des Traités UE et CE (Dalloz/Bruylant/Helbing, 2000), p. 928.

56 And not under very strict conditions, such as what is required by other provisions, among them Art. 114 TFEU, on the completion of the internal market.

57 The condition is proposed as a decisive element in testing the legitimacy of measures relating to human health issues which do not benefit from the possibility of reinforcement at national level that characterizes the environmental chapter of the Treaty. According to the General Court, the European institutions, although they may not take a purely hypothetical approach to risk nor base their decisions on a ‘zero-risk’ level, must take into account their obligation to ensure a high level of human health protection, ‘which, to be compatible with that provision, does not necessarily have to be the highest that is technically possible’: Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health v. Council [2002] ECR II-3305, para. 152; Case T-70/99, Alpharma v. Council [2002] ECR II-3495, paras 164–5.

58 Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the Placing of Plant Protection Products on the Market [1991] OJ L 230/1.

59 Case C-303/94, Parliament v. Council [1996] ECR I-2943.

60 Ibid., paras 25–31.

61 The Directive was based on Art. 43 EC.

62 N. 60 above.

63 Case T-229/04, Sweden v. Commission [2007] ECR II-2437, para. 54.

64 Ibid., para. 262.

65 Ibid., para. 133.

66 Ibid., para. 186, referring to the precautionary principle.

67 Moreover, the laying down of special reporting duties does not indicates that the Commission has compromised the principle that a high level of protection for human health should be ensured (ibid., para. 188). It neither indicates that the Commission was hesitant as to the risks posed by that substance, nor that it decided to observe, after the event, the consequences of paraquat rather than to carry out a prior assessment (ibid., para. 189).

68 Commission Decision 2005/717/EC Amending for the Purposes of Adapting to Technical Progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment [2005] OJ L 271/48.

69 Joined Cases C-14/06 and C-295/06, Parliament v. Commission [2008] ECR I-1649, paras 75–6.

70 Former Arts 152 EC (health) and 174(2) EC (environment).

71 Parliament v. Commission, n. 69 above, para. 76.

72 In other cases also relating to delegations the HLP requirement does not help in producing the annulment of Commission Decisions but, on the contrary, plays the role of a decisive shield for supporting their legality. This is not contradictory because these Decisions are intended here to comply with the aim of the basic act, which is to ensure a high level of protection: Case T-75/06, Bayer CropScience and Others v. Commission [2008] ECR II-2081, para. 83; Case T-326/07, Cheminova and Others v. Commission [2009] ECR II-2685, para. 169.

73 Case T-257/07, France v. Commission [2011] ECR II-5827; Case C-601/11P, France v. Commission, not yet reported.

74 See, to that effect, Aragao, A., ‘Le fondement européen de la prohibition de la régression: le niveau élevé de protection de l’environnement’, in M. Prieur & G. Sozzo (eds), La non régression en droit de l’environnement (Bruylant, 2012), pp. 347–364Google Scholar; de Sadeleer, N., EU Environmental Law and the Internal Market (Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar, at p. 45. See also Opinion of AG Léger in Safety Hi-Tech, n. 2 above, para. 67, mentioning that the legislature, because of the HLP requirement in the environmental field, is called upon to ensure that the policy being pursued is constantly improved.

75 [2001] OJ L 147/1.

76 Ibid., Art. 24a.

77 Case T-257/07, France v. Commission, n. 73 above, paras 64–5.

78 Sweden v. Commission, n. 63 above.

79 As enshrined in the former Art. 152(1) EC and Art. 24a of Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001, n. 75 above.

80 Case T-257/07, France v. Commission, n. 73 above, para. 65. This is in relation to Art. 152(1) EC providing that a high level of human health protection is to be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities and that protection of public health takes precedence over economic considerations and may therefore justify adverse economic consequences, even those which are substantial, for certain traders (see, to that effect, the orders in Case C-180/96R, United Kingdom v. Commission [1996] ECR I-3903, para. 93, and Case T-158/03, Industrias Químicas del Vallés v. Commission [2005] ECR II-2425, para. 134.

81 Case C-601/11P, France v Commission, n. 73 above, para. 135.

82 Ibid., para. 136. Referring to the rules governing general principles of food law, the Court also recalls that the provisional risk management measures, which are adopted in the context of scientific uncertainty, must be re-examined within a reasonable period of time in order to ensure that they are proportionate and no more restrictive of trade than is required to achieve the high level of health protection chosen by the Union (as specified in Art. 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 Laying Down the General Principles and Requirements of Food Law, Establishing the European Food Safety Authority and Laying Down Procedures in Matters of Food Safety [2002] OJ L 31/1).

83 Case C-350/03, Elisabeth Schulte and Wolfgang Schulte v. Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG [2005] ECR 1-9215, para. 61 (Schulte), commented on by E. Jerry (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review, pp. 501–18.

84 Ibid., para. 61.

85 Safety Hi-Tech, n. 2 above, para. 47; Bettati, n. 48 above, para. 45.

86 Art. 5(2) TEU and Art. 7 TFEU.

87 Case C-300/89, Commission v. Council [1991] ECR I-2867, para. 24.

88 Art. 168 TFEU.

89 Ibid.

90 Case C-376/98, Germany v. Parliament and Council [2000] ECR I-8419, para. 88 (emphasis added).

91 Case C-491/01, British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, para. 62.

92 The exact wording of the current Art. 114 TFEU is: ‘The Commission, in its proposals envisaged in paragraph 1 concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, will take as a base a high level of protection, taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts. Within their respective powers, the European Parliament and the Council will also seek to achieve this objective’.

93 Art. 168 TFEU. Only complementing measures are provided for: Germany v. Parliament and Council, n. 90 above, para. 88.

94 See also Case C-434/02, Arnold André [2004] ECR I-11825, para. 32; Case C-210/03, Swedish Match [2004] ECR I-11893, para. 32; and Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04, Alliance for Natural Health and Others [2005] ECR I-6451, para. 30.

95 P. Pescatore, ‘Les objectifs de la Communauté européenne comme principes d’interprétation dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice: Contribution à la doctrine de l’interprétation téléologique des Traités internationaux’, in Miscellanea W.J. Ganshof van der Meersch, vol. 2, (Bruylant, 1972), at p. 362.

96 Case C-473/07, Association Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et Rivières and OABA [2009] ECR I-319, paras 25–7.

97 Case C-585/10, Møller [2011] ECR I-13407, paras 29 and 33.

98 Directive 96/61/EC concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control [1996] OJ L 257/26.

99 Case C-416/10, Križan and Others v. Slovenská Inšpekcia Zivotného Prostredia, not yet reported, paras 108–9. Ph. Icard, ‘CJUE du 15 janvier 2013 “Križan”: la prédominance du droit de l’environnement européen sur une décision d’urbanisme nationale’ (2013) 1 Revue de droit de l’Union européenne, pp. 121–42. Directive 2001/42/EC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment [2001] OJ L 197/30 (Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive).

100 Case C-567/10, Inter-Environnement Bruxelles et al. v. Région de Bruxelles-Capitale [2012] ECR I-159, para. 30: an interpretation of the scope of the Directive, which would exclude plans and programmes the adoption of which is regulated by national legislative or regulatory provisions, ‘by appreciably restricting the directive’s scope, would compromise, in part, the practical effect of the directive, having regard to its objective, which consists in providing for a high level of protection of the environment. That interpretation would thus run counter to the directive’s aim of establishing a procedure for scrutinising measures likely to have significant effects on the environment’.

101 Case C-270/03, Commission v. Italy [2005] ECR I-5233, paras 19–22. At the time, Directive 75/442/EEC on Waste [1975] OJ L 194/1, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 Mar. 1991 on Waste [1991] OJ L 78/32.

102 Can a Member State be in breach of its obligations if it complies with most but not all of the legal provisions? The Court decided that ‘as it is apparent from Article 1 of the IPPC Directive’, because the EU legislature has imposed on the Member States obligations in order that a high level of protection of the environment, taken as a whole, might be achieved, ‘it follows from this that it is only if the Member States carry out the obligations imposed on them by that directive fully and in accordance with that directive that the objective of protection may be achieved’: see Case C-158/12, Commission v. Ireland [2013], not yet reported, para. 22.

103 Joined Cases C-418/97 and C-419/97, ARCO Chemie Nederland and Others [2000] ECR I-4475, para. 39; Case C-9/00, Palin Granit and Vehmassalon kansanterveystyön kuntayhtymän hallitus [2002] ECR I-3533, para. 23; Case C-1/03, Van de Walle and Others [2004] ECR I-7613, para. 45.

104 Case C-277/02, EU-Wood-Trading GmbH v. Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH

[2004] ECR I-11957, para. 47.

105 Directive 91/271/EC concerning Urban Waste Water Treatment [1991] OJ L 135/40.

106 Case C-396/00, Commission v. Italy [2002] ECR I-3949, paras 29–32; Case C-335/07, Commission v. Finland [2009] ECR I-9459, para. 29; Case C-438/07, Commission v. Sweden [2009] ECR I-9517, para. 30.

107 Case 6/00, Asa [2002] ECR I-1961, paras 63–6; Case C-237/07, Janecek [2008] ECR I-6221, para. 46.

108 Case C-41/11, Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre Wallonne, not yet reported, para. 55.

109 As demonstrated, for instance, in cases involving the REACH Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2008 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), [2006] OJ L 396/1). In Case C-558/07, SPCM and Others [2009] ECR I-5783, para. 35, the decision on the meaning of the concept of ‘monomer substance’ is ‘confirmed by the objectives of the REACH Regulation, as defined by Recital 1 in the preamble and Article 1(1) of the Regulation, which consist in ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment and the free movement of substances while enhancing competitiveness and innovation’. In Case C-358/11, Lapin v. Lapin [2013], not yet reported, paras 31 & 62, the Court explains that ‘[t]he REACH Regulation seeks, in particular, to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment. In the light of that objective, it must be acknowledged that the European Union legislature, by authorising the use of wood treated with […] solutions under certain conditions, has taken the view that, although that treatment is carried out with a dangerous substance which is subject to restrictions under that regulation, that dangerous nature is not capable of compromising that high level of protection of human health and the environment in the case where such use is limited to certain applications’. As a result, the REACH Regulation is considered to be the relevant framework for determining whether treated wood may cease to be waste and contributes to demonstrating that its holder is not required to discard it.

110 See, for that specific case law, D. Misonne, ‘Le niveau élevé de protection des consommateurs au cœur de l’article 114 TFUE: au-delà de la déclaration d’intention?’ (2011) 2 Droit de la consommation – Consumentenrecht, pp. 26–50.

111 Weatherill, S., ‘Consumer Policy’, in P. Craig & G. de Burca, The Evolution of EU Law, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press, 2011), at pp. 837–867Google Scholar.

112 Case C-52/00, Commission v. France [2002] ECR I-3827, para. 15; Joined Cases C-261/07 and C-299/07, VTB-VAB and Galatea [2009] ECR I-2949, paras 52 & 63; Case C-304/08, Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft [2010] ECR I-217, para. 41; and Case C-540/08, Mediaprint Zeitungs-und Zeitschriftenverlag [2010] ECR I-10909, paras 30–7.

113 Opinion in Case C-195/12, Bois de Vielsam, not yet reported, para. 82.

114 Art. 191 TFEU and even Art. 37 of the Charter.

115 See the wording of Art. 191(2) TFEU.

116 Case C-127/02, Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels [2004] ECR I-7405, para. 44.

117 Joined Cases T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00, T-132/00, T-137/00 and T-141/00, Artegodan and Others v. Commission [2002] ECR II-4945, para. 183. Judgment on appeal: C-39/03P, [2003] ECR I-7885.

118 ‘Where it proves to be impossible to determine with certainty the existence or extent of the alleged risk because of the insufficiency, inconclusiveness or imprecision of the results of studies conducted, but the likelihood of real harm to public health persists should the risk materialise, the precautionary principle justifies the adoption of restrictive measures, provided they are non-discriminatory and objective’: Case C-333/08, Commission v. France [2010] ECR I-0757, paras 92–3.

119 This teleological method leading to a creative jurisprudence has proponents but also detractors. See, among others, Conway, G., The Limits of Legal Reasoning and the European Court of Justice (Cambridge University Press, 2012)Google Scholar; Llorens, A. Albors, ‘The European Court of Justice, More than a Teleological Court’ (1999) 2 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, pp. 373–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

120 See Parliament v. Council, n. 59 above, paras 25–31. See also nn. 64 and 70 above.

121 Proportionality is not a uniform test but an open-textured principle which is used in different contexts to protect different interests. It entails different degrees of scrutiny, as expressed by Tridimas, T., ‘Proportionality in European Community Law: Searching for the Appropriate Standard of Scrutiny’, in The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe (Hart, 1999), pp. 65–84Google Scholar. On the proportionality of national measures see Jans, J., ‘Proportionality Revisited’ (2000) 27(3) Legal Issues of Economic Integration, pp. 239–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

122 Case C-343/09, Afton Chemical [2010] ECR I-7027, para. 45; Case C-189/01, Jippes and Others [2001] ECR I-5689, para. 81; SPCM and Others, n. 109 above, para. 41; and Joined Cases C-379/08 and C-380/08, ERG and Others [2010] ECR I-02007, para. 86.

123 Afton Chemical, ibid., para. 46.

124 Jacobs, F., ‘The Role of the European Court of Justice in the Protection of the Environment’ (2006) 18(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 195.

125 SPCM and Others, n. 109 above, paras 44–5.

126 Ibid., paras 44–5: ‘The objectives of the REACH Regulation, set out in Article1 thereof, are to “ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment […] as well as the free circulation of substances on the internal market while enhancing competitiveness and innovation”. However, regard being had to Recital 16 in the preamble to the REACH Regulation, it must be stated that the Community legislature established, as the main purpose of the obligation to register laid down in Article 6(3) thereof, the first of those three objectives, namely to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment’.

127 Afton Chemical, n. 122 above, para. 56.

128 Case 44/79, Hauer [1979] ECR 3727, para. 23; Case 265/87, Schräder [1989] ECR 2237, para. 15; Case C-293/97, Standley and Others [1999] ECR I-2603, para. 54; Joined Cases C-402/05P and C-415/05P, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351, para. 355; ERG and Others, n. 122 above, para. 80.

129 Case C-112/00, Schmidberger [2003] ECR I-5659, para. 81.

130 See, to that effect, Case C-331/88, Fedesa and Others [1990] ECR I-4023, paras 15–17; United Kingdom v. Commission, n. 80 above, para. 93; Case C-183/95, Affish [1997] ECR I-4315, para. 42; Industrias Químicas del Vallés v. Commission, n. 80 above, para. 134; Pfizer Animal Health v. Council, n. 57 above, paras 456–7; Case C-86/03, Greece v. Commission [2005] ECR I-10979, para. 96; Case C-127/07, Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine and Others [2008] ECR I-9895, para. 57.

131 Arcelor, ibid, para. 57.

132 Case T-31/07, Du Pont de Nemours [2013], not yet reported, paras 131–2.

133 Weatherill, n. 30 above, p. 440 at 13.26. With regard to the environmental integration clause see, inter alia, T. Schumacher, ‘The Environmental Integration Clause in Article 6 after EU Treaty: Prioritising Environmental Protection’ (2001) 3 Environmental Law Review, pp. 29–43; Dhondt, N., Integration of Environmental Protection into other EC Policies (Europa Law, 2003)Google Scholar.

134 Art. 168 TFEU.

135 Art. 114 TFEU.

136 Art. 168(5) TFEU. Integration clauses also characterize the fields of environment and consumer protection, but in a different context: harmonization is a straightforward option there, even if it must fit within the context of the completion of the internal market when operating in the field of consumer protection. Possibilities are larger in the area of environmental protection, where various intensities of possible harmonizations are accepted.

137 Greece v. Commission, n. 130 above, para. 88.

138 See Parliament v. Commission, n. 69 above.

139 Art. 114 TFEU: ‘The Commission, in its proposals envisaged in paragraph 1 concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, will take as a base a high level of protection, taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts. Within their respective powers, the European Parliament and the Council will also seek to achieve this objective’.

140 Weatherill, n. 30 above, at p. 441.

141 Art. 193 TFEU.

142 Fornasar, n. 43 above, para. 46; Case C-6/03, Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe [2005] ECR I-2753, para. 27.

143 P. Pagh, ‘The Battle on Environmental Policy Competences; Challenging the Stricter Approach; Stricter Might Lead to Weaker Protection’, in R. Macrory (ed.), Reflections on 30 Years of EU Environmental Law: A High Level of Protection? (Europa Law, 2005), pp. 1–16; Jans, J.H., ‘Minimum Harmonisation and the Role of the Principle of Proportionality’, in M. Führ, R. Wahl & P. von Wilmowsky (eds), Umweltrecht und Umweltwissenschaft; Festschrift für Eckard Rehbinder (Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2007), pp. 705–717Google Scholar. On the dimension of ‘gold-plating’ see Jans, J.H., Squintani, L., Aragão, A., R. Macrory & B.W. Wegener, ‘Gold Plating of Environmental Measures?’ (2009) 6(4) Journal of European Environment and Planning Law, pp. 417–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

144 By analogy with the Safety Hi-Tech (n. 2 above) and Bettati (n. 48 above) cases.

145 When adopted in accordance with Art. 193 TFEU, this continues from Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe, n. 142 above, paras 27ff.

146 Case C-169/07, Hartlauer [2009] ECR I-01721, para. 47; Case C-73/08, Bressol [2010] ECR I-2735, para. 62.

147 With references to Case C-158/96, Kohll [1998] ECR I-1931, para. 50; Case C-157/99, Smits and Peerbooms [2001] ECR I-5473, para. 74; Case C-385/99, Müller-Fauré and Van Riet [2003] ECR I-4509, para. 67; Case C-372/04, Watts [2006] ECR I-4325, para. 105.

148 Bressol, n. 146 above, para. 62.

149 Misonne, D., Droit européen de l’environnement et de la santé: L’ambition d’un niveau élevé de protection (Anthemis, 2011), pp. 286–287Google Scholar; de Sadeleer, N., ‘The Principle of a High Level of Environmental Protection in EU Law: Policy Principle or General Principle of Law?’, in Mijörättsliga Perspektiv Och Tankevändor (Iustus Förlag, 2013), pp. 447–465Google Scholar, at 450.

150 As observed regarding the revision of Directive 96/62/EC on Ambient Air Quality Assessment and Management [1996] OJ L 296, leading to the adoption of Directive 2008/50/ EC on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe [2008] OJ L 152, or the revision of the Waste Framework Directive (n. 101 above), leading to the adoption of Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste [2008] OJ L 312; see Misonne, ibid., at pp. 91–114.

151 D. Vogel, The Politics of Precaution, n. 10 above, at p. 12. See also Deville, T., L’analyse d’impact des réglementations dans le droit de l’Union européenne (Larcier, 2014)Google Scholar.