Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/6408

(Case C-519/24, Nitrogénművek)

(C/2024/6408)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nitrogénművek Vegyipari Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred

Must – or may – the objectives and the provisions of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) 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 (‘the ETS Directive’) – in particular, although not exclusively, Articles 1, 10 and 11 and recitals 5, 7 and 20 thereof – be interpreted as precluding a national measure (Government decree) which:

retrospectively subjects emissions produced as a result of the use of emission allowances to a fiscal charge (levying of a charge);

retrospectively subjects emissions produced as a result of the use of free emission allowances to a fiscal charge (levying of a charge);

retrospectively subjects emissions produced as a result of the use of free emission allowances to a fiscal charge (levying of a charge) the effect of which is to deprive the free emission allowances of their value and their compensatory effect;

retrospectively subjects emissions produced as a result of the use of free emission allowances to a fiscal charge (levying of a charge) the effect of which is to deter operators from reducing their emissions, improving their environmental efficiency or investing in more environmentally friendly technologies;

retrospectively subjects emissions produced as a result of the use of free emission allowances to a fiscal charge (levying of a charge) the purpose of which bears no relation to environmental protection or to the European Union’s emissions trading scheme and its objectives; on the contrary, the purpose of, and sole basis for, authorising the imposition of that charge is to deal with the effects of the armed conflict and humanitarian disaster close to Hungary?

In the light of the prohibition of discrimination arising from Articles 18, 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘ECHR’), must – or may – the concept of ‘operator’ referred to in Article 3(f) of the ETS Directive be interpreted as precluding a national measure (Government decree) which discriminates, in an unjustified and arbitrary manner and without any overriding reason in the public interest, against a particular category of such operators by comparison with operators not falling within its scope?

Must – or may – Articles 18, 49 and 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national measure (Government decree) which restricts the exercise of those freedoms and which:

discriminates, in an unjustified and arbitrary manner and without any overriding reason in the public interest, against a particular category of operators within the meaning of Article 3(f) of the ETS Directive by subjecting them to different (more onerous) rules;

defines its scope ratione personae in an arbitrary manner without any overriding reason in the public interest, and which is not suitable for attaining the objectives of empowerment that led to its adoption; and

is introduced suddenly and unforeseeably, with only three days having elapsed between its publication and its entry into force, and at the same time retrospectively imposes retroactive obligations in respect of events that occurred prior to its entry into force?

Must – or may – the protection of the right to property guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter and Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR be interpreted as precluding a national measure (Government decree) which is confiscatory in nature and which deprives operators falling within its scope of all of their gains in the immediate future, thus constituting a disproportionate and intolerable interference?

—

(1) OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6408/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—