IATA enters legal case brought by ATA and 3 US airlines against the UK over the Aviation EU ETS
in London ahead of the hearing expected this month into the case brought by the
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) and three major US airlines – American,
Continental and United – over the aviation EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).
directly related to the case under consideration but is intended to be useful
for evaluation by the judge. IATA says it wishes to express to the court its
own deep concerns of the scheme. Meanwhile, the UK Government’s consultation over transposing the second and final
phase of the EU directive into law ends this coming Friday, March 5. (see link
December for judicial review of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
concerning the Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2009.
Under the EU ETS, the UK is the administering state for the three airlines. They claim that unilaterally applying the EU ETS to non-EU airlines is in breach
of the Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944 – the Chicago Convention.
As a ‘friend of the court’, IATA will hope to present its opinions during the
of EU law. Assuming the case is passed to the ECJ, it is not expected to be heard before next year.
the concept of economic measures – they are a part of our four-pillar strategy.
But we are deeply concerned by Europe’s regional approach which will distort competition and lead to carbon leakage.
The brief will be an opportunity to make these concerns known to the court from
the global perspective of IATA."
and warned in December that states outside the EU would take legal action over
their airlines’ inclusion in the scheme.
and the US on their Open Skies agreement had hit difficulties over competition
and environmental concerns, including the EU ETS.
in the negotiation of a second-stage air transport agreement, we made good progress
on a number of fronts, including in reaching tentative accord on language for
a revised article on the environment. I do not expect emissions-related issues
to be a hurdle to reaching a final agreement."
seminar in London on February 19 ahead of the closing date on its consultation
in respect of the second-stage transposition of the EU directive into UK law.
This principally deals with administration charges to be paid by aircraft operators
allocated to the UK under the EU ETS and fines and penalties for non-compliance
with the regulations.
democratic way with stakeholders," he said. "Despite many strong objections to
the way in which the UK plans to interpret the EU directive, they are not that
interested in making any changes. The consultation, in my view, is therefore a
waste of time.
"A particular point is the plan to charge airlines for the administration of
the scheme. Rather than use the money generated from [the auctioning of] allowances
– which is planned to be funnelled directly into general government revenues –
the UK is asking each airline emitting over 500,000 tonnes of CO2 to pay an annual
£4,000 ($6,000) administration charge. It’s very frustrating."
which feel seriously disadvantaged, commented David Carlisle, Managing Director
of consultancy ETS Aviation.
change intentions, the latest rules could further hinder recovery in a business
sector traumatised by the recent financial crisis. Maybe large airlines can adapt
existing departments to limit the investment required – small airlines and micro
operators have far less capacity."
Agency, has received praise from some quarters over the speedy processing of submitted
monitoring plans and its responsiveness to queries from operators.
update of progress to date. Presentations from the seminar will shortly be posted
on the DECC website. [ The deadline for response is 5 March 2010 and the consultation documents can be found at:
and their respective administering State. A number of operators who are now considered
to have fallen outside the scope of the EU ETS – for example, their flights fell
below the de minimis threshold or were state flights – have been removed, with
some operators having been moved to another State.
VerifAvia. "Some operators that submitted monitoring plans must do it again to
another competent authority. They are adding burden to the burden."
the list does not prevent Member States from regulating operators.