Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2013:113
Date: 2013-03-07
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Environment;Pollution
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Poland

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. Those statements must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application, if necessary, without any further supporting information (see judgment of 12 March 2008 in Case T‑332/03 European Service Network v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 229, and the case‑law cited). 114 Consequently, the first part of this plea must be rejected. The second part, based on an infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87, read in conjunction with Article 1 of that directive 115 The Republic of Poland argues that the Commission infringed the second subparagraph of Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87, since that provision should be applied taking into account the objectives of that directive, namely reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the cost-effectiveness of the measures and their economic efficiency. According to the second subparagraph of Article 10a(1) of the directive, the Commission was required to define a method for determining the emission benchmarks without amending the essential elements of that directive. In the contested decision, the Commission did not, it is alleged, consider the effects of that decision on the objectives relating to the cost-effectiveness and economic efficiency of the measures, while, under Article 1 of the directive, all the objectives set out in that directive are equally important. 116 It should be noted that that argument is merely a continuation of the argument submitted in the context of the third plea and relating to the alleged inappropriateness of the contested decision in relation to the objectives of Directive 2003/87. It must therefore be dismissed for the same reasons (see paragraphs 66 to 76 above). 117 Consequently, the second part of this plea must be rejected. The third part, based on the Commission’s lack of competence to make the contested decision 118 The Republic of Poland argues that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission has exceeded the powers granted under Directive 2003/87, as it did not take into account the principles of European Union law mentioned in the first, second and third pleas and has substantially altered the essential elements of that directive. According to it, the contested decision does not constitute a measure implementing the directive, but a measure creating a climate policy independent of the European Union. 119 In that regard, first, it should be noted that, as regards the alleged failure to take into account the principles of European Union law mentioned in the first, second and third pleas, that argument is merely a continuation of that submitted in the context of the first part of the present plea, concerning an alleged obligation to correct the starting point for defining the principles for determining the ex ante benchmarks referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10a(2) of Directive 2003/87. It must therefore be rejected for the same reasons (see paragraphs 96 to 114 above). 120 Second, with regard to the alleged modification of the essential elements of Directive 2003/87, it should be noted that the requirement, according to which the Union-wide and fully-harmonised implementing measures for the allocation of free allowances are aimed at amending non-essential elements of that directive, results from the second subparagraph of Article 10a(1) of the directive. However, the argument of the Republic of Poland concerning an infringement of that provision has already been rejected in the context of the second part of this plea. As the Republic of Poland does not submit any additional evidence in this part of the plea, it must also be rejected. 121 Third, it should be noted that the arguments submitted by the Republic of Poland within the framework of this part of the plea do not go to prove that the Commission was not competent to make the contested decision. If the Commission did not take into account the principles of European Union law mentioned in the first, second and third pleas, and if it had substantially amended the essential elements of Directive 2003/87, it would have committed an error of law when determining the benchmarks. However, those arguments do not concern the issue of the competence of the Commission to determine the benchmarks. 122 Consequently, the third part of this plea and therefore this plea in its entirety must be rejected. 123 In the light of all the foregoing, the action must be dismissed. Costs 124 Under Article 87(2) 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. 125 As the Republic of Poland 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 (Seventh Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. Dittrich Wiszniewska-Białecka Prek Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 7 March 2013. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Polish.