Role of a judge under the two directives - focus on access to justice
Noise Directive (2/2)
The question then is, whether a person who is concerned by noise in one of the areas for which action plans must be drawn up (Article 8(2)) may appeal to a court and request the drawing up of a noise reduction action plan under Article 8. It is to be noted that the obligation of Member States to draw up such a plan does not depend on any condition: the obligation exists for the specified high-traffic areas and for urban agglomerations with more than 100 000 persons. The term "plan" is also sufficiently precise to leave no doubt as to a Member State's obligation: it is an organized and coordinated system of measures (case C-387/97 Commission v. Greece, paragraph 76), to be realized in a specific area and within a specific time-span, in order to identify the noise level and, where necessary, reduce the number of people exposed to it.
The obligation to elaborate a noise reduction action plan according to Article 8 is thus unconditional and sufficiently precise. As such action plans have the objective to protect human health, a person concerned - i.e., a person living in an area that is mentioned by Article 8(2) - has the possibility to appeal to a court in order to request the elaboration of such a plan. Article 8 stipulates, though, that measures within such a plan shall be at the discretion of public authorities. The individual person thus does not have the right to ask for specific measures to be taken.
The general conclusion is, therefore, that both Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC as well as Noise Directive 2002/49/EC provide for persons concerned to ask for the elaboration of (air or noise) pollution reduction plans. Air pollution plans must bring the pollution down as soon as possible, while noise reduction plans provide a flexible timetable for the realization of measures at the discretion of public authorities.