Ambivalent Environmental Justification to Minimum Cost for Tankers Sample Clauses

Ambivalent Environmental Justification to Minimum Cost for Tankers. In fact, the increasingly complex compensation scheme for oil pollution underpinned by the IG is not workable if it departs from the polluter pays principle, which has been institutionalized as the minimum cost for tankers in the IGA. However, the 1999 Commission Decision did not give a clear articulation of environmental consideration as a compelling justification to the minimum cost for tankers. It is interesting that earlier the same year in the CECED147 case, the environmental benefit was recognized by the Commission, with the acknowledgement that the higher energy efficiency of new model would cause less pollution. This case ignited a theoretical contention as to whether environmental benefits could constitute “technical or economic progress” to balance against competition restraints, on which the 2004 Guidelines notwithstanding cast doubts. Literally, the 2004 Guidelines simply referred to “efficiency gains” but made no mention of the public interests justification like environmental or other social benefits. Considering the 2004 Guidelines was mostly rooted on case law and decision-making practice, silence on environmental consideration could be viewed as a departure from CECED148 that did provide the exemption on environmental grounds. Protecting the environment is now a policy of the EU, but it is not entirely clear that the Commission should promote it at the expense of competition.149 Such a dim view to environmental consideration is concomitant to the doctrine of “pure economic efficiencies”, which has been later affirmed by the GC in GlaxoSmithKline v. 146 Ibid. 86 p.181 147 Ibid. 16 148 Ibid. 16 149 Ibid. 59 p.94