- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Borealis Polyolefine GmbH v. Minister for Land, Forestry, Environment, and Water Management
Borealis Polyolefine GmbH v. Minister for Land, Forestry, Environment, and Water Management
Geography
International
Year
2016
Document Type
Litigation
About this case
Filing year
2016
Status
Claims denied but corrections factor remanded
Geography
International
Court/admin entity
European Union → European Court of Justice
Case category
Suits against governments (Global) → GHG emissions reduction and trading (Global) → EU ETS (Global)
Principal law
European Union
At issue
Challenge to legal validity of "correction factor" calculation for emissions allowances
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Summary
This European Court of Justice rejected arguments from three industrial firms—one German, one Dutch, and one Italian—that they should be granted a larger number of free greenhouse gas emissions allowances under the European Union’s greenhouse gas Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The Court also instructed the European Commission to revise its approach to determining how many free allowances to grant—a step that has injected uncertainty into the markets built on the ETS. Several features of the ETS are critical to the case:
- some allowances are auctioned to emitters and others are given away for free;
- there are a fixed proportion of free allowances, which are granted only to firms that face competition from non-EU firms—a category that excludes electricity generators;
- the process for calculating the number of allowances—auctioned and free—begins with member states’ submission of emission sources and estimated volumes;
- responding to members states’ overestimation of the allowances due to their industrial firms, the European Commission issued Decisions in 2011 and 2013 to govern the calculation of a “correction factor.”
The Court found that the European Commission’s 2013 Decision established a “correction factor” calculation that ignored relevant information, and on that basis instructed the Commission to revise its approach by March 2017. The Court’s ruling largely ratified the November 2015 recommendation issued in the case by Advocate General Kokott, but deviated in one important respect: whereas Kokott had concluded that too many free allowances were granted to the firms, the ECJ determined that it was unclear whether too many or too few had been granted.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance