LW405 EU Law Case Study: ClientEarth v Secretary State for Affairs

This case study examines ClientEarth v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, focusing on the legal challenge against the UK government's approval of a natural gas plant. ClientEarth argued that the decision violated EU air quality directives, particularly concerning nitrogen dioxide levels. The case went before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which addressed the obligations of member states to maintain air quality plans and comply with established limits. The court's findings emphasized the importance of public interest and environmental protection, ultimately granting ClientEarth the right to pursue its case against the government. The analysis covers the procedure through which the case progressed, the legal issues involved, the court's findings, and the potential consequences of the judgment, including its impact on UK climate policy and air quality regulations. Desklib provides students with access to this case study solution and many other solved assignments.

LW405 EU Constitutional & Procedural
Law

Table of Contents
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
Summary of material facts:..........................................................................................................3
Procedure through which the case came to the court system-.....................................................4
Legal issues..................................................................................................................................5
Findings of the court/courts.........................................................................................................6
Commentary.................................................................................................................................6
Consequences of the case.............................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................1

MAIN BODY
ClientEarth v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs C-404/13
[2014] 2382
Summary of material facts:
In January the environmental group has filed a case on the state to oppose their decision
pertaining to approval of natural gas plants. It was supposed to be the largest plant of entire
Europe. There were some issues about climate change but it has been kept a side while making
decision of the initiative. As it was also perceived that planning authorities suggested some ideas
yet were not followed.
As per the European law the state was supposed to keep nitrogen dioxide level down so
can pave the way forward being under the jurisdiction decided by the law. This case raised some
questions before CJEU (Court of justice of European Union) about the entire course of events. It
has guided its directive using articles 13,22,23 1
The article 23 comes up with general duty on the all members of state to have a good
“Air quality Plans” in attempt to abide with the laws and toppling any possibility which may
impact human health. It was also suggested that the deadline was expired, the legitimate was
intended to notch up sort of new plan with this respect so can strengthen the final outcomes.
In the case it has been spilled that the air quality plans had to be prepared under article
23. but the extension was described under article 222. At the same time, there were 14 directives
too for making further improvement. These areas of improvements were not directly related to
the nitrogen dioxide but had there great implications.
This case raised a lot of questions before the court and it was supposed to extend set of
information to bring legal clarity of thought since the matter of air quality or health, environment
protection was quite rationale. There has been some key questions such as the circumstances
where members states were supposed to be obliged, to which degree they had to pay attention, in
which events the non compliance could be ignored.
Abiding with the laws and fabricated norms the judgement came in the year 2020 that the
ClientEarth was allowed to extend its case before court against the government. Since in the case
1
Taddei, Ugo, (2020)
2 Webster, Emily, (2019)

there were some policy related questions and if it was not followed then may drive some drastic
repercussions before the court. The notion of public interest can not be kept a side or avoided. It
is duty of a state to protect the rights and vesting interests of public.
As it was observed by the court this course of action was not just breaching the
legitimation but was also against the legal ability of fulfilment and protecting people's rights. By
the decision of allowing plant by the state was some way or the other breaching conviction of
protecting rights of layman. With this respect, this course of action was found guilty.
Procedure through which the case came to the court system-
There has been a radical process through the case came before course the process can be sited as
below-
In the first phase it becomes essential to perceive that the UK government has allowed
natural gas plant which was not aligning with the laws laid down by EU. Since keeping the
quality air standards alive was an inevitable act. The government was entitled to follow the law
so can omit the all possibilities which may threat public interests3.
In the second phase a group working for environment protection named ClientEarth has
filed a case on the UK government to challenge their decision. This was a legal process where all
the relevant notions were undertaken. This was the main phase where the case came to the court
system. Since there were already prevailing laws, and legal rules which were imparted in the
case.
In the fourth stage a range of trials have been taken into consideration where and all
associated rules, regulations, legitimation the attention was paid by the court. It became very
difficult due to many reasons. The court was asked multiple questions which were unanswered.
While taking the trials into focus one thing has been given priority. It was interest of different
stakeholders and the way they should be treated accordance with the legitimation.
The final or fifth stage was about realising the outcomes. The court has undertaken range
of grounds to drive the direction of this case. In this case, it has been ensured that all the relevant
areas must be poked to drive the most rational decision. On 22 may 20204. a judgement was
realised by court where it was stated that this decision of state was against number of
stakeholders and their underlying interests. It is essential for a state to keep these notions into
3 Pedersen, Ole. (2018)
4 Tromans, Stephen et. al. (2020)

focus before coming to any final conclusion. So ClientEarth was given permission to drive their
sue against the state.
Legal issues
Client Earth has launched its case in year 2011 after the government has failed to apply
for time extension under directive 2008/50/EC on air cleaner and quality for Europe. The
government has set the limit of NO2 in 16 of UK’s 43 zones which need to be followed by all
other zones by 1 January 2015. The legal issue was in year 2014 Defra stated document related
to local air quality management and it was expected with NO2 limit values exceed in 38 of 43
zones. There was obligation of the terms mentioned under article 2013.
The judgement of CJEU was also not clear and there was breach which was continuing
more than 5 years and national court has also not taken responsibility of it5. Although national
court need to be taken by authority of the case so that measures can be taken which was lead
down by directive. The government was asked to submit new air quality plan under article 23(1)
to the European Commission till 31 December 2015. The court also has liberty to apply to
administrative court for determining nay other legal issue which may have arisen between the
parties while preparing the plans.
There were total 9 grounds of challenges to the Secretary of State decision. First ground
the defend has misunderstood NPS EN- 1 on the assessment of the need for the development.
There was no legal reason for the assessment of need. Defendant have interpreted and misapplied
section 104(7) of the planning act 2008 and failed to company with guidelines of infrastructure
planning environmental impact assessment regulation 2017. Along with this, there was no
adequate reason given of the net zero target and it also failed to impose time limit condition on
the development6. Barrister union has raised issues and filled complaint against other things
such as secretary misinterpreted the Overarching national policy statement for energy while
doing the greenhouse gas emission as well as failed to assess carbon capture as well as the
government failed to give proper reason for assessment of the net zero target. The High Court
gave client earth permission to sue the government. The issue was also related to public interest
against the UK climate goals.
5 Lees, Emma. "Langton v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.,
2021
6 Maes, Mikaël, Kate Jones, Mireille Toledano, and Ben Milligan., 2019

Findings of the court/courts
The supreme court order that government should submit new air quality plans to EUC by
31 December 2015. The judgment was given by Lord Carwash and all the members of the court
agreed with it.
The CEJU answered to question first two question that it is raising ambiguity and there
failure of article 22 by not fulfilling the deadline. The air quality plan mentioned in article 23(1)
need to meet the obligation mentioned under article 13. Although court stated that article 22 has
no practical importance as it is related with Annex XV section B which can be applied to plan
prepared under article 22 but not to terms of article 237. However, while applying terms of
article 23 and 22 a checklist measures need to be followed by the parties. Along with Supreme
court allows the appeal to the extent that there is declaration of breach of Article 13 of the Air
Quality Directive. The other issues raised regarding air quality need to be presented in court of
justice of the European Union. It was appropriate to grant declaration that the UK has breached
Article 13 and there was no sufficient reason to decline the declaration as the breach was clearly
established and no judgement related to bars relief. Moreover, article 23 and 22 was not
interpreted properly and due to that issues was faced by EU law and it requires to follow CJEU.
In addition to this, judgement related to request has been made that NGO’s who are interested in
protection of environment and the Secretary of State for Environment need to revise their air
quality plan according to UK and Great Britani Directive 2008/50 of its zone8. The subject
matter like objectives of air quality designed plan need to deal with prevention or reduce of
harmful effects on human health and the environment as whole. The limits need to fixed
according to the scientific knowledge with aim of reducing the harmful effect on human and
environment as whole and the plan need to be established within the specific time limits.
According to Article 13 the limit values should be PM10 of sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide
in air and it should not exceed the limit values mentioned in Annex X1.
Commentary
Simon Birkett clean air in London case comment:
The author stated that no one imagined that after 13 days of general election supreme court has
passed judgement in Client Earth Vs the Secretary state and government was held liable for it. It
7 Lee, Maria.,2022
8 Webster, Emily.,2019

is one of the public interest case and most important one in UK as during the appeal question
related health of public was raised and government admitted that 805 of breached of NO2 limits
are caused by transportation. Deiseal vehicle was held responsible as there were rise in air
pollution since early 1990s and increase in NO2 emission was failed according to set standards
of European Engines which has never set limits for it (Case Comment: ClientEarth v The
Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2015] UKSC 28, 2021). The
author also commented that UK is worst in the World air pollution. It has explained that there
are two types of air pollution such as gases and particles. NO2 is modern gas regulated for
health and legal purpose as well as particle generated from lumps. Scientist King’s College
London have stated that roads of London have higher NO2 in the world because of large
number of diesel car and tall buildings. The report also stated that major reason of death is due
to long exposure to NO2 and in year 2010 there was around 5900 deaths and the reason was fine
particles and NO2. The author stated that Air quality Minister should launch new plans by
September as supermen court has order to final plans by 2015. Supreme court decision has saved
London from pollution and there is high time to ban diesel like coal burning for clean air.
Consequences of the case.
From the judgement of the case has helped UK form reducing the climate pollution and give
healthier life to citizens. It is important because there is need to set the air quality plan so that
factories can follow the criteria and there will be less pollution. Along with this, if controlling of
harmful gas has been done than most of the diseases like heart and stroke can be reduce and there
be healthy environment for citizens9. Although people now tend to follow The Clean Air Act
1993 which give guiles to local authorities to tackle smoke emission form industrial plants and
chimneys building. UK has also established clean air strategy in which government authorities
are guided to reduce emissions from transport, farming and industry. It also highlights simple
truth that technology can be used to make the air cleaner and feasible. The motive behind
launching this strategy is economic growth and development.
9 Pedersen, Ole .2019

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Lee, Maria. "Brexit and environmental protection in the United Kingdom: governance,
accountability and law making." Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law 36, no. 3
(2018): 351-359.
Lee, Maria. "Brexit and the Environment Bill: The Future of Environmental
Accountability." Global Policy 13 (2022): 119-127.
Lees, Emma. "Langton v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Badger
cull in the Court of Appeal." Environmental Law Review 22, no. 1 (2020): 43-48.
Maes, Mikaël J A, Kate E. Jones, Mireille B. Toledano, and Ben Milligan. "Accounting for
natural capital has cross-cutting relevance for UK public sector decision-
making." Ecosystem services 44 (2020): 101127.
Pedersen, Ole W. "Post-Brexit environmental accountability and enforcement–Who is afraid of
the courts?." Environmental Law Review 20, no. 3 (2018): 133-136.
Webster, Emily. "Global Justice and Climate Governance: Bridging Theory and Practice: by
Alix Dietzel, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2019, 192 pp,£ 75.00 (hardback),
ISBN 9781474437912." King's Law Journal 30, no. 2 (2019): 326-329.
Taddei, Ugo. "Case C-723/17 craeynest: New developments for the right to clean Air in the
EU." Journal of Environmental Law. 32. no. 1 (2020): 151-160.
Webster, Emily. "Global Justice and Climate Governance: Bridging Theory and Practice: by
Alix Dietzel, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2019, 192 pp,£ 75.00 (hardback),
ISBN 9781474437912." King's Law Journal. 30, no. 2 (2019): 326-329.
Pedersen, Ole W. "Post-Brexit environmental accountability and enforcement–Who is afraid of
the courts?." Environmental Law Review. 20, no. 3 (2018): 133-136.
Tromans, Stephen, Katherine Barnes, Adam Boukraa, Stephanie David, and Ned Helme.
"Significant UK Environmental Law Cases 2019–20." Journal of Environmental Law
32. no. 2 (2020): 323-337.
Online references
1

Case Comment: ClientEarth v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs [2015] UKSC 28, 2021. [Online]. Available through < http://ukscblog.com/case-
comment-clientearth-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-the-environment-food-and-rural-
affairs-2015-uksc-28/>
<http://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/non-us-case-documents/
2020/20200522_NA_judgment-1.pdf>
2