# C_2021217EN.01003001.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/30

---

Appeal brought on 6 April 2021 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 January 2021 in Case T-9/19, ClientEarth v EIB

(Case C-223/21 P)

(2021/C 217/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Blanc and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: ClientEarth, European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | order ClientEarth to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ClientEarth to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises three grounds of appeal.

Errors in law in applying the principle of consistent interpretation as regards the Aarhus convention and in interpreting Articles 2 and 9 of the Aarhus convention (this first ground concerns paragraphs 107 and 125-126 of the judgment under appeal).

Error in law in interpreting Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation (1) on the notion of ‘administrative act’; this ground is divided in three parts:

| — | error in law in interpreting the notion of ‘legislation’ provided for in Article 2(1)(f) of the Aarhus Regulation (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 121-124 of the judgment under appeal); |
| --- | --- |

—

error in law in interpreting the notion of ‘legislation’ provided for in Article 2(1)(f) of the Aarhus Regulation (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 121-124 of the judgment under appeal);

| — | error in law in interpreting the notion of ‘measure of individual scope’ under Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 126-142 of the judgment under appeal); |
| --- | --- |

—

error in law in interpreting the notion of ‘measure of individual scope’ under Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 126-142 of the judgment under appeal);

| — | error in law in the interpretation of the words ‘legally binding and external effect’, laid down in the same provision (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 149-173 of the judgment under appeal). |
| --- | --- |

—

error in law in the interpretation of the words ‘legally binding and external effect’, laid down in the same provision (this part of the second ground concerns paragraphs 149-173 of the judgment under appeal).

Breach of Article 271, letter c), TFEU (this ground of appeal concerns paragraphs 89-92, 150-152 and 169-171 of the judgment under appeal).

---

(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).

---