# C_2019155EN.01003101.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/31

---

Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by Hungary against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Joined Cases T-339/16, T-352/16 and T-391/16, Ville de Paris, Ville de Bruxelles and Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission

(Case C-178/19 P)

(2019/C 155/37)

Languages of the case: Spanish and French

Parties

Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ville de Paris, Ville de Bruxelles, Ayuntamiento de Madrid, European Commission

Form of order sought

Hungary claims in its appeal before the Court of Justice that the Court should:

| | Principally,






  — | Set aside the judgment delivered on 13 December 2018 by the General Court in Joined Cases T-339/16, T-352/16 and T-391/16, Ville de Paris, Ville de Bruxelles and Ayuntamiento de Madrid v European Commission, and declare that the actions brought by the Ville de Paris, Ville de Bruxelles and Ayuntamiento de Madrid are inadmissible; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Principally,

—

Set aside the judgment delivered on 13 December 2018 by the General Court in Joined Cases T-339/16, T-352/16 and T-391/16, Ville de Paris, Ville de Bruxelles and Ayuntamiento de Madrid v European Commission, and declare that the actions brought by the Ville de Paris, Ville de Bruxelles and Ayuntamiento de Madrid are inadmissible;

| | In the alternative:






  — | Annul the operative part of the judgment at first instance in part in so far as it sets a 12-month period starting on the date on which that judgment takes effect and during which the effects of the provision annulled by the judgment are to be maintained and, simultaneously, order that the effects of the annulled provision be maintained until new rules replacing those provisions have been adopted; |
| --- | --- | --- |

In the alternative:

—

Annul the operative part of the judgment at first instance in part in so far as it sets a 12-month period starting on the date on which that judgment takes effect and during which the effects of the provision annulled by the judgment are to be maintained and, simultaneously, order that the effects of the annulled provision be maintained until new rules replacing those provisions have been adopted;

| | In addition:






  — | Order the applicants in the proceedings before the General Court to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- | --- |

In addition:

—

Order the applicants in the proceedings before the General Court to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its appeal, the Hungarian Government disputes, first, the findings in the judgment under appeal concerning admissibility and, consequently, the admissibility of the actions for annulment and, second, the assessment and finding in the judgment under appeal relating to the future effects of the annulled provisions.

According to the Hungarian government, the General Court finds erroneously in the judgment under appeal that Regulation 2016/646 (1) does not require any implementing measures with respect to the applicants and that they are directly concerned by the regulation and, accordingly, that they have standing to institute proceedings under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. In fact, Regulation 2016/646 requires implementing measures concerning the applicants also; in addition, the regulation does not concern the applicants directly, since the limitation relating to measures restricting the use of vehicles adopted or envisaged by the applicants which is found to exist in the judgment under appeal does not stem from the regulation.

Furthermore, in the opinion of the Hungarian government, the General Court infringes in the judgment under appeal the principle of legal certainty by setting a 12-month period during which the effects of the provision annulled are to be maintained, given that that period cannot be considered to be sufficient to adopt rules to replace that provision. The shortened period granted to businesses to prepare is not sufficient to comply with the modified provisions and it does not either allow for the mitigation of business losses which have already been assessed. A situation which is contrary to the principle of legal certainty will arise during the period between the end of the transitional effects of the annulled provision and the adoption of the new rules and the rights of both car manufacturers and consumers will be seriously infringed.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) (OJ 2016 L 109, p. 1).

---