# C_2023235EN.01004801.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/48

---

Action brought on 18 April 2023 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission

(Case T-215/23)

(2023/C 235/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth AISBL (Ixelles, Belgium), Fédération Européenne pour le Transport et l’Environnement (Ixelles), WWF European Policy Programme (Brussels, Belgium), Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, J. MacLeod, Barrister-at-Law)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission, sent by letter of 8 February 2023, by which the Commission rejected a request for internal review dated 9 September 2022 brought by the applicants pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission, sent by letter of 8 February 2023, by which the Commission rejected a request for internal review dated 9 September 2022 brought by the applicants pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (1) and

| — | order the Commission to meet the applicants’ costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to meet the applicants’ costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in rejecting the arguments that it had been required to conduct — and had not conducted — a climate consistency assessment as required by Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in rejecting the arguments that it had been required to conduct — and had not conducted — a climate consistency assessment as required by Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred as to the requirements of Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) not only as to its analysis as a whole but as to:






  — | its interpretation and assessment of the requirements of ‘conclusive scientific evidence and the precautionary principle’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred as to the requirements of Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) not only as to its analysis as a whole but as to:

—

its interpretation and assessment of the requirements of ‘conclusive scientific evidence and the precautionary principle’;

| — | the lifecycle of economic activities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the lifecycle of economic activities; and

| — | stranded assets and lock-in of emissions. |
| --- | --- |

—

stranded assets and lock-in of emissions.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in respect of errors surrounding the classification of activities as transitional, including by erring:






  — | in the classification of fossil gas based activities as transitional; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in respect of errors surrounding the classification of activities as transitional, including by erring:

—

in the classification of fossil gas based activities as transitional;

| — | in respect of the greenhouse gas emissions thresholds set; |
| --- | --- |

—

in respect of the greenhouse gas emissions thresholds set;

| — | in respect of the contribution of alternative technologies; |
| --- | --- |

—

in respect of the contribution of alternative technologies;

| — | in respect of the requirement to phasing out greenhouse gas emissions; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in respect of the requirement to phasing out greenhouse gas emissions; and

| — | in respect of the development and deployment of low carbon alternatives. |
| --- | --- |

—

in respect of the development and deployment of low carbon alternatives.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in respect of the requirement to ‘do no significant harm’ to any of the six environmental objectives in Regulation 2020/852. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in respect of the requirement to ‘do no significant harm’ to any of the six environmental objectives in Regulation 2020/852.

---

(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).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’) (OJ 2021 L 243, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (OJ 2020 L 198, p. 13).

---