UK: Is The EU’s Application Of Its Emissions Trading Scheme To Aviation Illegal?

Previously published in ABA Air and Space Journal

The European Union (EU) is proceeding with its plan to include non-member state airlines in its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), notwithstanding the agreement reached in October 2010 among the 190 contracting states of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation on the basis of 15 agreed principles.

Predictably, the inclusion of aviation within the ETS has been both legally controversial and politically significant.  John Byerly, until recently U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Affairs, recently stated that the U.S. government recognizes "the efficacy [and] the potential utility of market based measures[,]" but seeks a global agreement through ICAO that would persuade the EU to exclude aviation from the ETS.  "If we don't get there at ICAO, the consequences are going to be serious," he warned.

At the 37th assembly of ICAO in Montreal in October 2010, International Air Transport Association (IATA) Director General and CEO Giovanni Bisignani insisted that "the only effective long-term solution remains a global approach".  EU Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard stated that the EU is committed to "fighting for the inclusion of aviation in the ETS."  She noted that, in Montreal, ICAO refrained from adopting language that would make the application of the ETS to airlines dependent on the mutual agreement of other states.

The EU, however, agreed to engage in constructive dialogue with third countries during the implementation of the ETS, most notably regarding how to address emissions from incoming flights from outside the EU.

On December 16, 2009, the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) and three U.S. airlines (American, Continental and United) commenced their long-threatened legal action in the U.K. against the inclusion of aviation in the ETS. The English court permitted various entities to intervene in the case, including IATA, which represents about 230 airlines comprising 93% of scheduled international air traffic; the National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC); and five environmental, non-governmental organizations (the Aviation Environment Federation, WWF-UK, the European Fund for Transport and Environment, the Environmental Defense Fund and Earthjustice).  The U.S. carrier claimants brought the case in London because the U.K. is the first EU member state to implement the ETS.  As expected, however, the case was referred to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).  

This article first provides an overview of the ETS and its application to aviation, then summarizes the EU legislation establishing the ETS; next, the article assesses the claimants' main legal arguments and the U.K. government's response thereto; finally, the article concludes that, even if the claimants only prevail on some but not all of their arguments, such an outcome could have profound implications for the future of EU climate change policy relating to aviation.

Overview of the ETS

The European Commission views the ETS as essential to its commitment to reduce anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.  The ETS, which was established on January 1, 2005, covers 13,000 installations representing about 46% of the EU's total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010.  The ETS is a "cap and trade system": operators must annually surrender allowances equal to the tons of CO2 they emit, but the EU caps the number of allowances that it issues each year, so operators whose emissions exceed their allowances must purchase extra allowances from the carbon market.

Aviation in the ETS

Airlines' CO2 demand is estimated to be 23 million metric tonnes (mt) of CO2 in 2012, rising to 122mt by 2020.  The Commission is concerned that this increasing demand will negate the impact of emissions reductions elsewhere in the EU, which is why it included aviation within the ETS.  Effective 2012, the ETS will apply to every operator of an aircraft that lands or takes off from an airport in the EU, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.  If an aircraft holds an operating license from an EU country it will be administered by that country, whereas non-EU carriers have been assigned to an administering member state based on their primary EU routes. 

The number of allowances issued to the aviation sector will be expressed as a percentage of the sector's mean average annual emissions from 2004 to 2006.  In 2012, this percentage will be 97%.  (The actual amount of the cap for 2012 will be determined by September 30, 2011.)  The number of allowances to be allocated to an airline for the year 2012 will be the airline's share of the total attributed aviation emissions in 2010, and will be allocated by December 30, 2012.  In 2012, 85% of allowances will be issued for free.  Unless an aircraft operator is successful in reducing its emissions, it will need to secure surplus allowances covering 17.55% of its emissions (or, 100 - (0.85 x 0.97)). 

Relevant EU Legislation

The ETS was established pursuant to Directive 2003/87.  On November 19, 2008, the European Parliament and Council adopted Directive 2008/101 (the "Directive"), which amends Directive 2003/87 to include aviation in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the EU.  Member states are required to implement the Directive.  The U.K. government elected to implement the Directive by a two-stage legislative process.  First, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change issued the Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2009 (the "Regulations"), which entered into force on September 17, 2009, and implement certain provisions of the Directive.  Following a lengthy consultation process with regard to the second stage, the Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2010 came into force in August 2010, many months after the ATA case had commenced.

The Procedural Route

Under EU law, only the CJEU has authority to declare EU legislation invalid.  While the claimants lack standing to bring a direct challenge against the Directive before the CJEU, they may challenge it in proceedings before the U.K. courts, which must then make a reference to the CJEU where there is substantial doubt as to the position under U.K. law.  The claimants therefore brought their case in the Administrative Court in London against the Regulations.  The U.K. government opposes the claims, but has no objection to referral to the CJEU.  A preliminary ruling has therefore been sought from the CJEU on a number of questions concerning the validity of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Directive 2008/101.  Only the CJEU may render a ruling on these issues that will be binding on all member states.  The CJEU has been asked to prioritize this case in view of its global importance and the requirement under the ETS that carriers surrender allowances effective January 1, 2012. 

The Claimants' Case

In principle, the claimants object to the EU's unilateral application of an emissions trading scheme to aviation outside the framework of ICAO.  ATA Vice President for Environmental Affairs, Nancy Young, stated:  "we will not get a global approach [through ICAO] if we don't have this lawsuit... Because the Europeans would have no incentive to come to the table and negotiate about a solution that works for all of international aviation..." As a legal matter, the claimants contend that the 2008 Directive is unlawful under EU law because it violates:

  1. customary international law; 
  2. the Chicago Convention 1944;
  3. the Kyoto Protocol; and
  4. the EU-U.S. Open Skies Agreement 2007.

Article 1 of the Chicago Convention - Sovereignty

The claimants argue that the obligation to surrender allowances in respect of emissions from flights over third countries' airspace and over the high seas as well as over the airspace of EU member states is illegal.  They contend that the ETS is contrary to the customary international law principle, memorialized in Article 1 of the Chicago Convention, that each state "has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory."

In addition, the claimants argue that customary international law principles prohibit any state from subjecting any part of the high seas (including airspace over the high seas) to its sovereignty, and that aircraft over the high seas are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their state of registration, save as expressly provided for by international treaty.  Specifically, the claimants argue that the ETS regulates U.S. airlines in U.S. airspace from their point of departure in the U.S., over U.S. airspace, and across the Atlantic (with in many cases only a small proportion of their journey taking place over EU airspace), by requiring them to give up allowances in respect of such flights, and thus infringes on the principle of sovereignty by "impacting upon aviation activity" in those areas. 

The Treasury Solicitor, defending the claim on behalf of the U.K. government, countered that the EU is not bound by the Chicago Convention because it is not a signatory to the Convention.  The claimants accept this, but contend that they may rely on the Chicago Convention because all EU member states are parties to the Convention.   The Treasury Solicitor also argued that the requirement that operators forfeit allowances for emissions caused by flights passing over the territory of third countries (or the high seas) does not amount to regulation over the territory of a third country state.  The ETS's requirements have no impact whatsoever on the sovereignty of other states, which remain free to impose emissions schemes and other rules on aviation over or into or from their territory.  Although the claimants point out that there is a clear risk of multiple regulation, Article 25a of the Directive may operate to exempt flights from a particular country from the ETS where that country has adopted emission reducing measures.

Article 11 of the Chicago Convention – Air Regulations

The claimants also rely on Article 11 of the Convention to demonstrate that regulations made by each state may only apply within the territory of that state.  Article 11 states:

"...the laws and regulations of a contracting State relating to the admission to or departure from its territory of aircraft engaged in international air navigation, or to the operation and navigation of such aircraft while within its territory, shall be applied to the aircraft of all contracting States without distinction as to nationality, and shall be complied with by such aircraft upon entering or departing from or while within the territory of that State."

The claimants argue that the ETS is contrary to Article 11 insofar as its application is not limited to flights within the airspace of the EU member state.

Article 11, however, is an anti-discrimination provision with a specific purpose.  It requires that rules applied by a contracting state within its airspace be applied to aircraft of all nationalities without discrimination, and that the aircraft within that state's airspace comply with those rules.  In this respect, the ETS is non-discriminatory because it treats similarly all flights to/from EU member states. Further, Article 11 concerns laws and regulations relating to the admission and departure of aircraft and their operation and navigation within a contracting state's territory, and does not apply to environmental legislation regarding emissions trading.   Nor does Article 11 state that the only regulations that can apply in relation to a contracting state's airspace are those made by the state in question. 

Article 12 of the Chicago Convention – Rules of the Air

The claimants argue that the ETS violates Article 12 of the Convention, which provides that regulations relating to "flight and maneuver" shall be uniform across contracting states:

"Each contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft flying over or maneuvering within its territory and that every aircraft carrying its nationality mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with the rules and regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force.  Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own regulations in these respects uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention.  Over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this convention.  Each contracting State undertakes to insure the prosecution of all persons violating the regulations applicable."

According to the ICAO Legal Bureau, Article 12 extends to a wide range of activities, including rules for the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. This may be because the emissions charges are levied by reference to fuel burn, and arguably there is an inherent conflict between the free "operational and navigational activities" of airlines and the need to conserve fuel to avoid higher emissions charges.

Further, the claimants allege that only ICAO has authority to make rules in respect of flights over the high seas and individual states' rules regarding flight and maneuver of aircraft in their own airspace must be consistent with ICAO rules and regulations.  ICAO has regulated "similar" activities, such as dropping and spraying from aircraft.

Like Article 11, Article 12 has a specific purpose.  It requires contracting states to adopt measures to ensure compliance with rules on flight and maneuver in their airspace and uniformity of such rules with those established by ICAO.  It also states that the rules in force over the high seas on flight and maneuver shall be those established under the Chicago Convention.  Because Article 12 relates to regulations concerning the flight and maneuver of aircraft, it seems unlikely that it also would apply to environmental legislation regarding emissions trading.  The ETS does not affect the flight and maneuver of aircraft, but only the terms for admission to and/or departure from EU territory.

Article 15 of the Chicago Convention – Fees, Duties and Other Charges

The claimants argue that the imposition of a requirement on foreign aircraft to surrender emission allowances would contravene Article 15 of the Convention, which is entitled "Airport and similar charges."  Its first part focuses on the principle of public use airports being open under uniform conditions to all aircraft, and with principles as to charges for the use of airports and air navigation facilities. The claimants argue that the ETS violates the last sentence of Article 15:

"No fees, duties or other charges shall be imposed by any contracting State in respect solely of the right of transit over or entry into or exit from its territory of any aircraft of a contracting state or persons or property thereon."

The Treasury Solicitor counters that the ETS is not a "fee, due or other charge," but rather an administrative scheme that obliges air operators to monitor and report their emissions and gives them the option of whether to operate within their allocated allowances or exceed those allowances by buying additional allowances.  Even if an air operator decides to exercise the latter option, the amount that it pays cannot (it is argued) be characterized as a fee, due or charge, particularly given the overall context in which the provision appears.  ICAO's Council Resolution on Taxation of International Air Transport states: "Charges are levies to defray the costs of providing facilities and services for civil aviation," whereas the ETS is not "designed and applied specifically to recover the costs of providing facilities and services for civil aviation."

A further counter-argument is that, even if the ETS could be described as a charge, it is not imposed in respect "solely" of the right of transit over or entry into or exit from territory.  The Treasury Solicitor cited the 2007 case of R (Federation of Tour Operators) v HM Treasury, in which the judge found that U.K. Air Passenger Duty was not a due imposed solely in respect of transit, entry or exit because it was equally payable if the flight did not leave the U.K., and was "essentially an anti-discrimination provision" precluding a state from favoring its national airlines when imposing charges. 

Although not cited in the U.K. government's case, a Dutch court has ruled that a departure tax levied by the Government of The Netherlands was not contrary to Article 15 primarily because:  (i) there is no indication that the term "charges" should be interpreted to cover taxes, in addition to "fees" and "dues;" (ii) the heading of Article 15 refers to "airport and similar charges;" and (iii) if contracting states had wanted to restrict their sovereign rights to levy taxes, the treaty would have contained clear language to that effect.

Both the U.K. and Dutch cases have been criticized on the basis that the terms "due" and "charge" may, by their ordinary meaning, include a tax such as the Dutch tax – indeed, the Spanish, French and Russian texts of the Chicago Convention refer to "taxes."  In addition, the reference to overflight, in respect of which no airport charges are required, arguably suggests that Article 15 is intended to be an absolute, rather than non-discriminatory, rule.  The Convention is concerned with international air transport:  indeed, its title is the "Convention on International Civil Aviation."  Hence it is unlikely that the drafters intended the word "solely" to mean that states could impose fees, dues and charges on international air transport provided they also did so on domestic air transport.  On the contrary, the drafters would not have been interested in how states choose to regulate air transport within their own territory.  Given that the Chicago Convention is concerned only with international air transport, it is implausible that a state could bypass the Article 15 prohibition simply by applying the same tax to domestic air transport.

The Open Skies Agreement

The EU and the U.S. entered into the Open Skies Agreement in April 2007.  The claimants argue that taxing the consumption of aircraft fuel, including by reference to emissions, is prohibited by Article 11(2)(c) of the Agreement, which exempts from taxes "fuel... introduced into or supplied in the territory of a Party for use in an aircraft of an airline of the other Party engaged in international air transportation, even when those supplies are to be used on a part of the journey performed over the territory of the Party in which they are taken on board."

The Treasury Solicitor responds that the ETS does not fall within the categories of taxes, levies, duties, fees and charges from which fuel is exempt.  The intervening environmental organizations, meanwhile, contend that ICAO distinguishes between tax and charges, on the one hand, and emissions trading schemes, on the other, and argue that there is no basis for conflating them.

While a large number of ETS allowances will be issued to airlines for free (at least in the initial trading period commencing in 2012), there will be at least three elements of the ETS scheme that arguably constitute a tax, levy, duty, fee or charge: first, the allowances purchased through the public auction; second, the excess or surplus emissions that would need to be covered by the purchase of additional allowances on the open market; and, third, any fines imposed for failure to surrender sufficient allowances at the end of each reporting period.   

In 1999, in Case C-346/97 Braathens, the CJEU held that a Swedish tax on emissions, calculated on fuel consumption, amounted to a tax on fuel, on the grounds that, as there was a direct and inseverable link between fuel consumption and the polluting substances emitted in the course of consumption, the tax at issue "must be regarded as levied on consumption of the fuel itself."  While the judgment is not directly relevant, the same reasoning could be applied to the ETS.

The claimants' argument relating to the Open Skies Agreement differs from its other arguments because if they prevail on this argument, that would only assist U.S. airlines.  Nonetheless, other bilateral agreements may contain equivalent restrictions on the taxation of fuel.  These could be similarly interpreted to restrict "taxation of emissions," thereby providing a similar basis for other non-EU airlines to challenge the ETS.   IATA has cited such provisions in numerous bilateral agreements between the EU and/or member states and countries other than the U.S., such as Singapore and Australia.  The NACC raises similar issues with regard to Canada.

Many commentators on the ATA case have taken the viewbelieve that the claimants' arguments outlined above in relationrelating to international law and the Chicago Convention are largely without merit, but that there is some forcemerit to the claimant's arguments with regard to the Open Skies Agreement, and also in relation to certain bilateral agreements, not least because of the precedent of the Braathens case. Having invested so much political capital in the emissions trading scheme ETS, it would be a political disaster for the EU were it to be selectively applied in the aviation context, with certain airlines being exempt dependent on their nationality.   

The Kyoto Protocol

The claimants' final argument is that the Kyoto Protocol requires the parties to pursue reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation "working through the ICAO."  The Treasury Solicitor responds that the Kyoto Protocol does not require states to work exclusively through ICAO.  A similar argument is made (and refuted) with regard to the Open Skies Agreement, which recognizes the need to pursue agreement on the issue of emissions trading "within the framework of ICAO."


If the ATA and the U.S. airline claimants prevail in their legal action, it would have profound implications for the future of EU climate change policy relating to aviation.  Significantly, if their arguments relating to the Chicago Convention fail but their Open Skies Agreement-related arguments succeed, the claimants could lose their battle to have the ETS as a whole declared invalid, yet attain their narrower objective to prevent the ETS being applied to U.S. airlines.  This could leave the door open for other non-EU airlines to review their countries' bilateral aviation arrangements with EU member states and perhaps initiate similar legal actions.  

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.