# C_2014315EN.01006701.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/67

---

Action brought on 18 June 2014 — EEB v Commission

(Case T-462/14)

2014/C 315/112

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested Commission decision of 8 April 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested Commission decision of 8 April 2014;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 8 April 2014 (Ares(2014)1102834) dismissing as inadmissible the applicant’s request for internal review regarding Commission Decision 2013/687/EU of 26 November 2013 on the notification by the Hellenic Republic of a transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging illegality of Article 10 read in conjunction with Articles 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 (1). The applicant submits that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention as the provisions applied by the Commission — Article 10 read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 — are incompatible with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. The illegality of these provisions in Regulation No 1367/2006 should have led the Commission to declare the request for internal review admissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging illegality of Article 10 read in conjunction with Articles 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 (1). The applicant submits that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention as the provisions applied by the Commission — Article 10 read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 — are incompatible with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. The illegality of these provisions in Regulation No 1367/2006 should have led the Commission to declare the request for internal review admissible.

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging in the alternative that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of its obligation to act as Convention compliant as possible. The applicant submits that the Commission should have interpreted Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006 and in particular the words ‘administrative act’ in that provision in conformity with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention and should have left aside the definition of ‘administrative act’ as laid down in Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006, which is according to the applicant too restrictive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging in the alternative that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of its obligation to act as Convention compliant as possible. The applicant submits that the Commission should have interpreted Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006 and in particular the words ‘administrative act’ in that provision in conformity with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention and should have left aside the definition of ‘administrative act’ as laid down in Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006, which is according to the applicant too restrictive.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging more alternatively that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 by holding that Commission Decision 2013/687/EU did not qualify as an act of individual scope. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging more alternatively that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 by holding that Commission Decision 2013/687/EU did not qualify as an act of individual scope.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

1

---