# C_2016136EN.01001801.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 12 February 2016 — ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine v Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

(Case C-80/16)

(2016/C 136/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In its Decision 2011/278/EU (1), did the European Commission, by excluding emissions from recycled waste gases used in the production of electricity from the benchmark value for hot metal, contravene Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) concerning the rules for establishing ex-ante benchmarks, and in particular the objective of efficient energy recovery of waste gases and the option of allocating allowances free of charge in the case of electricity produced from waste gases? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In its Decision 2011/278/EU (1), did the European Commission, by excluding emissions from recycled waste gases used in the production of electricity from the benchmark value for hot metal, contravene Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) concerning the rules for establishing ex-ante benchmarks, and in particular the objective of efficient energy recovery of waste gases and the option of allocating allowances free of charge in the case of electricity produced from waste gases?

1

2

| 2. | By basing its determination of the benchmark for hot metal in that decision on the data in the iron and steel ‘BREF’ and the ‘LDSD 2007’, did the Commission infringe the obligation to use the most exact and up-to-date scientific data available and/or the principle of sound administration? |
| --- | --- |

2.

By basing its determination of the benchmark for hot metal in that decision on the data in the iron and steel ‘BREF’ and the ‘LDSD 2007’, did the Commission infringe the obligation to use the most exact and up-to-date scientific data available and/or the principle of sound administration?

| 3. | In Decision 2011/278/EU, is the European Commission’s inclusion, if proven, of a factory producing both sintered ore and pellets in the reference installations for determining the benchmark for sintered ore such as to vitiate the value of that benchmark on grounds of illegality? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In Decision 2011/278/EU, is the European Commission’s inclusion, if proven, of a factory producing both sintered ore and pellets in the reference installations for determining the benchmark for sintered ore such as to vitiate the value of that benchmark on grounds of illegality?

| 4. | Did the Commission, by failing to state specifically the reasons for proceeding in that way in Decision 2011/278/EU, infringe the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Did the Commission, by failing to state specifically the reasons for proceeding in that way in Decision 2011/278/EU, infringe the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

1

(2)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

2

---