- 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-366/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 22 July 2010 — The Air Transport Association of America, American Airlines, Inc., Continental Airlines, Inc., United Airlines, Inc. v The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010CN0366
62010CN0366
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
25.9.2010
Official Journal of the European Union
C 260/9
(Case C-366/10)
()
2010/C 260/12
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: The Air Transport Association of America, American Airlines, Inc., Continental Airlines, Inc., United Airlines, Inc.
Defendant: The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
Questions referred
(a) the principle of customary international law that each state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over its air space;
(b) the principle of customary international law that no state may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty;
(c) the principle of customary international law of freedom to flyover the high seas;
(d) the principle of customary international law (the existence of which is not accepted by the Defendant) that aircraft overflying the high seas are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the country in which they are registered, save as expressly provided for by international treaty;
(e) the Chicago Convention (in particular Articles 1, 11, 12, 15 and 24);
(f) the Open Skies Agreement (in particular Articles 7, 11(2)(c) and 15(3));
(g) the Kyoto Protocol (in particular, Article 2(2))?
To the extent that question 1 may be answered in the affirmative:
(a) as contravening Articles 1, 11 and/or 12 of the Chicago Convention;
(b) as contravening Article 7 of the Open Skies Agreement?
4. Is the Amended Directive invalid, insofar as it applies the Emissions Trading Scheme to aviation activities:
(a) as contravening Article 2(2) of the Kyoto Protocol and Article 15(3) of the Open Skies Agreement;
(b) as contravening Article 15 of the Chicago Convention, on its own or in conjunction with Articles 3(4) and 15(3) of the Open Skies Agreement;
(c) as contravening Article 24 of the Chicago Convention, on its own or in conjunction with Article 11(2)(c) of the Open Skies Agreement?
(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (Text with EEA relevance)
OJ L 275, p. 32
(2) Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (Text with EEA relevance)
OJ L 8, p. 3