Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading
Both disputes fall within the area subject to the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2003/87/ES of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. The scheme is aimed at substantial reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in order to, without limitation, help Member States comply with their obligation under the Kyoto Protocol. The Directive requires Member States to draft the so-called National Allocation Plan (NAP) defining the total amount of emission allowances they intend to issue for the given period and the method of allocating them to the polluters, all of the above under the clearly predetermined objective criteria set forth in schedules to the Directive. Each Member State is obliged to disclose the plan and to notify the other Members States and the European Commission of their plan. The European Commission shall then decide whether these NAPs comply with the predetermined criteria.
Both the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Poland sued the European Commission on ground the Commission’s decisions on their respective NAPs were invalid. The Commission stated in respect of both countries that the presented NAPs failed to respect the criteria predetermined by the Directive and indirectly imposed on both Estonia and Poland the duty to reduce the number of greenhouse gas emission allowances for 2008 through 2012 by a certain percentages.
The Court sharply dismissed the Commission’s procedure and referred to the fact that the European Commission does not have the power to determine a particular amount of the allowances be issued by a particular country. The Commission may merely review the National Allowance Plans compliance with the objectively predetermined criteria and, if the Plan fails to comply, dismiss the Plan by its decision. If the Commission has any objections against the Plan it cannot simply remove the data therein and replace them by other data acquired by its own method of assessment. The Commission thus interfered with the exclusive powers that the Directive entrusts to individual Member States and which gives them a certain room for deciding which method they choose to draft their NAPs.
The Court of First Instance therefore dismissed the decision by the European Commission on the National Allocation Plans of the said Member States.
The Commission filed appeals in both cases since it believes that the CFI assessed its powers when assessing the NAP too narrowly. The court further failed to sufficiently consider the principal objective of the allowance trading, which is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and the need to ensure the equal treatment of all Member States.
The appeals do not suspend the execution of the CFI rulings. For this reason, new Commission decisions on the originally submitted NAPs are in preparation and will replace the annulled decisions. At the same time, the Commission points out that grounds can hardly be found to justify why the total amount of allowances in the assessed NAPs should differ from the verified data of the plan for the previous period.
In addition to other East-European countries, the Czech Republic filed a similar lawsuit against the European Commission since the Commission also reduced the amount of the allowances for the Czechs by approximately 15%. No verdict has yet been made.
Other articles
KŠB Assisted Sandberg Capital with a Majority Investment in HotelTime Solutions
The KŠB team provided legal advice to the investment group Sandberg Capital on the completion of a majority investment in HotelTime Solutions, one of the leading providers of cloud-based software for hotel operations management.
KŠB assisted Seyfor with the extension of its financing provided by Raiffeisenbank, Tatra banka and, newly, Slovenská sporiteľňa.
The KŠB team provided legal advice to its long-standing client Seyfor in connection with the continuation and expansion of its syndicated financing. The existing lending banks, Raiffeisenbank Czech Republic and Tatra banka, decided to continue supporting Seyfor’s growth, with Slovenská sporiteľňa joining the financing as a new lender.
Evidence skutečných majitelů: Co přinese znepřístupnění od 17. prosince 2025?
Letošní rozhodnutí Nejvyššího soudu a Nejvyššího správního soudu navázala na rozsudky Soudního dvora Evropské unie, a, s platností i pro Českou republiku, konstatovala, že zveřejňování údajů v rámci evidence skutečných majitelů představuje nepřiměřený zásah do základních práv majitelů na soukromí a ochranu osobních údajů. Důležitým aspektem těchto rozhodnutí byl závěr, že sankce, které postihují povinné subjekty jako reakce na nesplnění jejich povinnosti zápisu do evidence skutečných majitelů, není možné vymáhat, dokud je evidence veřejná. Tato situace se změní 17. prosince 2025, kdy ministerstvo znepřístupní evidenci skutečných majitelů; povinným subjektům tak budou opět hrozit závažné sankce.
