Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2022:142
Date: 2022-03-16
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Energy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Belgium

summary presentation of those pleas. That presentation must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to exercise its power of review (see judgment of 13 May 2020, Germanwings v Commission, T‑716/17, EU:T:2020:181, paragraph 145 and the case-law cited). Consequently, in so far as the applicant has failed clearly to explain how Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation No 182/2011 have been infringed in the present case, such an argument must be rejected as inadmissible. 168 As regards Article 5a of Decision 1999/468 – which remains applicable by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 12 of Regulation No 182/2011 – this provides, in paragraph 3 thereof: ‘If the measures envisaged by the Commission are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee, the following procedure shall apply: … (c) if, within three months from the date of referral to them, the European Parliament or the Council opposes the draft measures, the latter shall not be adopted by the Commission. In that event, the Commission may submit to the Committee an amended draft of the measures or present a legislative proposal on the basis of the Treaty; …’ 169 However, it is clear that the applicant’s argument that the Ecodesign Regulatory Committee itself amended the draft regulation prior to delivering its positive opinion thereon, is based on an incorrect factual premiss. 170 In its defence, the Commission explained that, in order to obtain a positive opinion from the committee, the Commission had made modifications to its draft regulation, in accordance with Article 5a of Decision 1999/468. Thus, it is not the Ecodesign Regulatory Committee which modified the draft regulation, but the Commission, which had the necessary competence to do so. Following the meeting of the Committee, a measure was envisaged by the Commission in accordance with the Committee’s opinion, as provided by Article 5a(3) of Decision 1999/468. 171 It should therefore be held that the applicant has failed to provide any evidence that can cast doubt on the truth of those facts, as described by the Commission. 172 Moreover, the applicant’s claims that the Ecodesign Regulatory Committee could only give a positive or negative opinion on a draft, which could not be modified, must be rejected. There is no provision of EU law which provides that the committee cannot discuss a draft submitted by the Commission, propose modifications and see those modifications taken up by that institution. On the contrary, Article 4(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of Energy-Related Products provides ‘… before the vote, the chair shall inform the committee of the manner in which the discussions and suggestions for amendments have been taken into account, in particular as regards those suggestions which have been largely supported within the committee’. 173 Consequently, the seventh plea in law must be rejected as unfounded and the action dismissed in its entirety, without it being necessary to order the measures of inquiry sought by the applicant, referred to in paragraph 9 above. Suffice it to observe that the Commission did not rely in any way on those documents in order to support its position concerning the lawfulness of the contested regulation and that they do not appear to be necessary in order to give a ruling in the present case. Costs 174 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 175 Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Bromine Science Environnemental Forum (BSEF) to pay the costs. Svenningsen Mac Eochaidh Pynnä Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 16 March 2022. E. Coulon M. van der Woude Registrar President * Language of the case: English.