The contribution examines the key issues raised in the judgment delivered in case Ministre de la Transition écologique e Premier ministre. In the present case the Court of Justice ruled that the provisions of Directive 2008/50 on air quality, while imposing clear and precise obligations with regard to the result that the Member States must achieve, do not have the purpose of conferring individual rights on individuals that can be invoked to obtain compensation for damages from a Member State, in case of a violation of the air quality standards established by the said Directive. The analysis of the judgment highlights some critical points of the Court’s reasoning, starting from the lack of any reference to the provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the principle of effectiveness. These profiles could perhaps have led to a different solution concerning the effective implementation of Directive 2008/50 by the Member States and the protection of the right of individuals to a healthy environment.
Manfredi, M., La “direttiva sulla qualità dell’aria” e la tutela dei singoli alla luce del caso Ministre de la Transition écologique e Premier ministre, <<EUROJUS>>, 2023; (2): 34-44 [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/251254]
La “direttiva sulla qualità dell’aria” e la tutela dei singoli alla luce del caso Ministre de la Transition écologique e Premier ministre
Manfredi, Matteo
2023
Abstract
The contribution examines the key issues raised in the judgment delivered in case Ministre de la Transition écologique e Premier ministre. In the present case the Court of Justice ruled that the provisions of Directive 2008/50 on air quality, while imposing clear and precise obligations with regard to the result that the Member States must achieve, do not have the purpose of conferring individual rights on individuals that can be invoked to obtain compensation for damages from a Member State, in case of a violation of the air quality standards established by the said Directive. The analysis of the judgment highlights some critical points of the Court’s reasoning, starting from the lack of any reference to the provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the principle of effectiveness. These profiles could perhaps have led to a different solution concerning the effective implementation of Directive 2008/50 by the Member States and the protection of the right of individuals to a healthy environment.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.