# C_2023304EN.01001601.xml

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/16

---

Action brought on 17 July 2023 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-445/23)

(2023/C 304/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in its entirety, Decision (EU) 2023/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Decision (EU) 2015/1814 as regards the number of allowances to be placed in the market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading system until 2030; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in its entirety, Decision (EU) 2023/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending Decision (EU) 2015/1814 as regards the number of allowances to be placed in the market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading system until 2030; (1)

| — | order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Plea alleging infringement of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 192(2)(c) TFEU by failing to adopt the contested decision on the basis of that Treaty provision, which requires unanimity in the Council, despite the fact that the contested decision significantly affects a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Plea alleging infringement of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 192(2)(c) TFEU by failing to adopt the contested decision on the basis of that Treaty provision, which requires unanimity in the Council, despite the fact that the contested decision significantly affects a Member State’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.

| 2. | Plea alleging breach of the principle of energy solidarity laid down in Article 194(1)(b) TFEU
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 194(1)(b) TFEU by maintaining, for the years 2024-2030, the values indicated in Article 1(5) of Decision 2015/1814 — an act which threatens Poland’s energy security — without taking into account the interests of individual Member States that are liable to be affected and without weighing their interests against the interests of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Plea alleging breach of the principle of energy solidarity laid down in Article 194(1)(b) TFEU

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 194(1)(b) TFEU by maintaining, for the years 2024-2030, the values indicated in Article 1(5) of Decision 2015/1814 — an act which threatens Poland’s energy security — without taking into account the interests of individual Member States that are liable to be affected and without weighing their interests against the interests of the Union.

| 3. | Plea alleging infringement of Article 3(1) and (3) TEU through the adoption of Decision 2023/852, which decreases the well-being of the peoples of the European Union and social cohesion among Member States
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 3(1) and (3) TEU by adopting Decision 2023/852, which may lead to a decrease in mining employment and a rise in unemployment and, as a result, to greater social inequality between Member States and increased social exclusion. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Plea alleging infringement of Article 3(1) and (3) TEU through the adoption of Decision 2023/852, which decreases the well-being of the peoples of the European Union and social cohesion among Member States

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 3(1) and (3) TEU by adopting Decision 2023/852, which may lead to a decrease in mining employment and a rise in unemployment and, as a result, to greater social inequality between Member States and increased social exclusion.

| 4. | Plea alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Decision 2015/1814, through an inadequate impact assessment, as well as breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU)
  In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 13(2) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Decision 2015/1814, by adopting Decision 2023/852 on the basis of an incomplete, out-of-date and incorrectly carried out impact assessment which was prepared using data which did not take account of Russia’s armed attack on Ukraine and the energy crisis resulting therefrom. The defendant institutions have also acted in breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU) by maintaining, for the years 2024-2030, the values indicated in Article 1(5) of Decision 2015/1814, without conducting reliable analyses justifying such a decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Plea alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Decision 2015/1814, through an inadequate impact assessment, as well as breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU)

In Poland’s view, the defendant institutions have infringed Article 13(2) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Decision 2015/1814, by adopting Decision 2023/852 on the basis of an incomplete, out-of-date and incorrectly carried out impact assessment which was prepared using data which did not take account of Russia’s armed attack on Ukraine and the energy crisis resulting therefrom. The defendant institutions have also acted in breach of the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU) by maintaining, for the years 2024-2030, the values indicated in Article 1(5) of Decision 2015/1814, without conducting reliable analyses justifying such a decision.

---

(1)  OJ 2023 L 110, p. 21.

---