Order;Information — ECLI:EU:C:2020:66
Date: 2020-01-31
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Environment
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Belgium

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2020 — Euracoal v Commission (Case C‑172/19 P)(1) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Environment — Directive 2010/75/EU — Best available techniques (BAT) conclusions — Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 –Large combustion plants — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Lack of individual concern — Participation in the process leading to the adoption of the act — Procedural guarantees at the time of the adoption of the act — Substitution of grounds — No grounds alleging infringement of the appellant’s procedural rights — Act not of individual concern — Appeal manifestly unfounded ) 1. Appeal —Grounds —Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see paras 16, 17, 43, 44) 2. Appeal —Grounds — Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of EU law — Operative part well founded for other legal reasons — Rejection (see paras 21, 22, 43) 3. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Directive relating to industrial emissions — Implementing decision establishing best available techniques — Action brought by an association that had benefited from procedural rights during the procedure for the adoption of the implementing decision — No grounds alleging infringement of those procedural rights — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/75, Arts 13 and 75; Commission Decision 2017/1442) (see paras 26-40) Operative part 1. The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded. 2. The Association européenne du charbon et du lignite (Euracoal) is ordered to pay the costs. 1 OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.