# C_2023314EN.01001601.xml

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/16

---

Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Imerys Aluminates Groupe v Commission

(Case T-391/23)

(2023/C 314/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Imerys Aluminates Groupe (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Martinet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the European Commission, by a document of 22 July 2019 entitled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS post-2020’, adopted an interpretation which adversely affects the applicant and which is binding on the Member States, as interpreted by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) (a national court of last instance); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the European Commission, by a document of 22 July 2019 entitled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS post-2020’, adopted an interpretation which adversely affects the applicant and which is binding on the Member States, as interpreted by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) (a national court of last instance);

| — | order the European Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the company Imerys Aluminates as a result of the adoption of the document of 22 July 2019 entitled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS post-2020’, calculated at EUR 40 075 347; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the company Imerys Aluminates as a result of the adoption of the document of 22 July 2019 entitled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS post-2020’, calculated at EUR 40 075 347;

| — | order the European Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted wrongfully in adopting the document of 22 July 2019 entitled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS post-2020’ (‘the FAQ’). This plea is divided into three parts:






  — | the first part, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted wrongfully in adopting the document of 22 July 2019 entitled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS post-2020’ (‘the FAQ’). This plea is divided into three parts:

—

the first part, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations;

| — | the second part, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty; |
| --- | --- |

—

the second part, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty;

| — | the third part, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention. |
| --- | --- |

—

the third part, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of legal certainty, should Implementing Regulation No 2021/447 (1) be interpreted as implicitly setting out the rules of interpretation explicitly set out in the FAQ of 22 July 2019. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of legal certainty, should Implementing Regulation No 2021/447 (1) be interpreted as implicitly setting out the rules of interpretation explicitly set out in the FAQ of 22 July 2019.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/447 of 12 March 2021 determining revised benchmark values for free allocation of emission allowances for the period from 2021 to 2025 pursuant to Article 10a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2021 L 87, p. 29).

---