- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-723/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Lies Craeynest and Others v Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/50/EC — Articles 6, 7, 13 and 23 — Annex III — Assessment of air quality — Criteria for determining whether the nitrogen dioxide limit values have been exceeded — Measurements using fixed sampling points — Choice of appropriate sites — Interpretation of the values measured at the sampling points — Obligations of the Member States — Judicial review — Intensity of the review — Power to issue directions)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CA0723
62017CA0723
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 280/4
(Case C-723/17) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/50/EC - Articles 6, 7, 13 and 23 - Annex III - Assessment of air quality - Criteria for determining whether the nitrogen dioxide limit values have been exceeded - Measurements using fixed sampling points - Choice of appropriate sites - Interpretation of the values measured at the sampling points - Obligations of the Member States - Judicial review - Intensity of the review - Power to issue directions)
(2019/C 280/04)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Lies Craeynest, Cristina Lopez Devaux, Frédéric Mertens, Stefan Vandereulen, Karin De Schepper, ClientEarth VZW
Defendants: Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer
Other party: Belgische Staat
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 4(3) TEU and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, and Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe must be interpreted as meaning that it is for a national court, hearing an application submitted for that purpose by individuals directly affected by the exceedance of the limit values referred to in Article 13(1) of that directive, to verify whether the sampling points located in a particular zone have been established in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraph 1(a) of Section B of Annex III to the directive and, if they were not, to take all necessary measures in respect of the competent national authority, such as, if provided for by national law, an order, with a view to ensuring that those sampling points are sited in accordance with those criteria.
2.Article 13(1) and Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether a limit value with an averaging period of one calendar year, as laid down in Annex XI to that directive, has been exceeded, it is sufficient that a pollution level higher than that value be measured at a single sampling point.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.