Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2022:1003
Date: 2022-12-15
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Environment
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded

summary, the appeals brought by the EIB and the Commission are unfounded and must therefore be dismissed. VI. Costs 141. Where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to the costs (Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice). 142. Under Article 138(1) of those rules, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 143. Since ClientEarth has applied for costs and the appellants have been unsuccessful, the appellants are to be ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by ClientEarth in connection with the appeals. VII. Conclusion 144. I therefore propose that the Court should: (1) Dismiss the appeals; (2) Order the European Investment Bank and the European Commission to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by ClientEarth in connection with the appeals. 1 Original language: German. 2 Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June1998 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 4), approved by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1). 3 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). 4 Judgments of 2 December 2009, Commission v Ireland and Others (C‑89/08 P, EU:C:2009:742, paragraph 61), and of 24 January 2013, Frucona Košice v Commission (C‑73/11 P, EU:C:2013:32, paragraph 88). 5 Judgments of 2 April 1998, Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France (C‑367/95 P, EU:C:1998:154, paragraph 67), and of 10 December 2013, Commission v Ireland and Others (C‑272/12 P, EU:C:2013:812, paragraph 28). 6 See judgments of 11 July 1990, Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council (C‑305/86 and C‑160/87, EU:C:1990:295, paragraph 18); of 2 May 2006, Regione Siciliana v Commission (C‑417/04 P, EU:C:2006:282, paragraph 36); of 29 November 2007, Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall and Others v Commission (C‑176/06 P, not published, EU:C:2007:730, paragraph 18); and of 5 December 2019, Commission v Spain (Waste management plans) (C‑642/18, EU:C:2019:1051, paragraph 19). 7 Building on the judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011, Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB (T‑461/08, EU:T:2011:494, paragraph 35 et seq.). 8 Judgments of 12 September 2006, Reynolds Tobacco and Others v Commission (C‑131/03 P, EU:C:2006:541, paragraph 54), and of 12 July 2022, Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council (C‑348/20 P, EU:C:2022:548, paragraph 62). 9 Judgments of 12 September 2006, Reynolds Tobacco and Others v Commission (C‑131/03 P, EU:C:2006:541, paragraph 54), and of 26 January 2010, Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission (C‑362/08 P, EU:C:2010:40, paragraph 51). 10 Judgments of 9 July 2020, Czech Republic v Commission (C‑575/18 P, EU:C:2020:530, paragraph 47), and of 12 July 2022, Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council (C‑348/20 P, EU:C:2022:548, paragraph 63). 11 Judgments of 12 September 2019, TestBioTech and Others v Commission (C‑82/17 P, EU:C:2019:719, paragraphs 37 and 38), and of 3 September 2020, Mellifera v Commission (C‑784/18 P, not published, EU:C:2020:630, paragraphs 63 and 64). The judgment of 6 October 2021, ClientEarth v Commission (C‑458/19 P, EU:C:2021:802) also presupposes this. 12 Footnotes 13 and 14 to recitals 14 and 15 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1767 (OJ 2021 L 356, p. 1). 13 Moreover, if Article 271(c) TFEU were applicable to the present dispute, the General Court would lack jurisdiction under Article 256(1) TFEU; see judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011, Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB (T‑461/08, EU:T:2011:494, paragraph 39). 14 Judgments of 12 September 2019, TestBioTech and Others v Commission (C‑82/17 P, EU:C:2019:719, paragraph 37), and of 3 September 2020, Mellifera v Commission (C‑784/18 P, not published, EU:C:2020:630, paragraph 63). 15 Judgments of 12 September 2019, TestBioTech and Others v Commission (C‑82/17 P, EU:C:2019:719, paragraph 38), and of 3 September 2020, Mellifera v Commission (C‑784/18 P, not published, EU:C:2020:630, paragraph 64). 16 Moreover, if Article 271(c) TFEU were applicable to the present dispute, the General Court would lack jurisdiction under Article 256(1) TFEU; see judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011, Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB (T‑461/08, EU:T:2011:494, paragraph 39). 17 See also judgments of 3 March 1988, Commission v EIB (85/86, EU:C:1988:110, paragraph 28), and of 10 July 2003, Commission v EIB (C‑15/00, EU:C:2003:396, paragraph 101). 18 See, in particular, recitals 3 and 18 and Article 1(1) of the Aarhus Regulation and the judgment of 3 September 2020, Mellifera v Commission (C‑784/18 P, not published, EU:C:2020:630, paragraph 88). 19 See judgments of 24 November 1992, Anklagemindigheden v Poulsen and Diva Navigation (C‑286/90, EU:C:1992:453, paragraph 9); of 3 September 2008, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission (C‑402/05 P and C‑415/05 P, EU:C:2008:461, paragraph 291); of 21 December 2011, Air Transport Association of America and Others (C‑366/10, EU:C:2011:864, paragraph 123); of 11 July 2018, Bosphorus Queen Shipping (C‑15/17, EU:C:2018:557, paragraph 44); and of 3 September 2020, Mellifera v Commission (C‑784/18 P, not published, EU:C:2020:630, paragraph 77); and, specifically regarding the Aarhus Convention, judgments of 8 March 2011, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie (C‑240/09, EU:C:2011:125, paragraph 50); of 12 May 2011, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen (C‑115/09, EU:C:2011:289, paragraph 41); and of 15 January 2013, Križan and Others (C‑416/10, EU:C:2013:8, paragraph 77). 20 Judgment of 3 September 2008, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission (C‑402/05 P and C‑415/05 P, EU:C:2008:461, paragraph 282). 21 Judgment of 3 October 2013, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council (C‑583/11 P, EU:C:2013:625, paragraph 97). 22 See, to that effect, judgment of 28 March 2017, Rosneft (C‑72/15, EU:C:2017:236, paragraph 74). See also judgment of 20 December 2017, Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftschutz Umweltorganisation (C‑664/15, EU:C:2017:987, paragraph 45). 23 See points 21 to 25 above. 24 Memorandum of Understanding between the European Ombudsman and the European Investment Bank of 9 July 2008 concerning information on the Bank’s policies, standards and procedures and the handling of complaints, including complaints from non-citizens and non-residents of the European Union (https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/document/en/3809). 25 Report of 6 September 2021, Curtis biomass power generation plant (complaint No SG/E/2019/04). 26 See, for example, decision of the European Ombudsman of 18 February 2013 in Case 48/2012/MHZ – alleged mishandling of a complaint against the EIB and decision of 27 April 2022 on how the European Investment Bank (EIB) weighed the environmental impact assessments of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline and the Trans-Anatolian Pipeline before financing the projects (Case 2030/2020/NH). 27 See, in that regard, my Opinion in Edwards (C‑260/11, EU:C:2012:645, point 8), and the Opinions of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in Gemeinde Altrip and Others (C‑72/12, EU:C:2013:422, point 101); of Advocate General Jääskinen in Council and Others v Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht (C‑401/12 P to C‑403/12 P, EU:C:2014:310, point 114), and in Council and Commission v Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe (C‑404/12 P and C‑405/12 P, EU:C:2014:309, point 23); and of Advocate General Bobek in Folk (C‑529/15, EU:C:2017:1, point 86), and Stichting Varkens in Nood and Others (C‑826/18, EU:C:2020:514, point 77). 28 EIB, EIB Group Complaints Mechanism Policy (2018, p. 5); see, for example, the findings and recommendations of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee of 3 April 2009, Civic Alliance for the Protection of the Bay of Vlora (Albania)/European Community (ACCC/C/2007/21, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/2/Add.1, paragraph 26). 29 See, in particular, the eighth and ninth recitals of the preamble and Articles 6 to 8 of the Aarhus Convention. 30 See findings and recommendations of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee of 29 April 2008, Wium-Andersen v Denmark (ACCC/C/2006/18, ECE/MP.PP/2008/5/Add.4, paragraphs 28 and 33). 31 Judgments of 3 March 1988, Commission v EIB (85/86, EU:C:1988:110, paragraph 24), and of 10 July 2003, Commission v EIB (C‑15/00, EU:C:2003:396, paragraph 75). 32 Judgments of 3 March 1988, Commission v EIB (85/86, EU:C:1988:110, paragraphs 29 and 30), and of 10 July 2003, Commission v EIB (C‑15/00, EU:C:2003:396, paragraph 102). 33 Findings and recommendations of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee of 3 April 2009, Civic Alliance for the Protection of the Bay of Vlora (Albania)/European Community (ACCC/C/2007/21, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/2/Add.1, paragraph 26). 34 EIB, EIB Group Complaints Mechanism Policy (2018, p. 5). 35 See point 19 above. 36 See, to that effect, judgments of 20 December 2017, Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation (C‑664/15, EU:C:2017:987, paragraph 47), and of 8 November 2022, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Approval of motor vehicles) (C‑873/19, EU:C:2022:857, paragraph 68). 37 Cited in footnote 12. 38 See points 92 and 93 above. 39 Judgments of 3 March 1988, Commission v EIB (85/86, EU:C:1988:110, paragraphs 29 and 30), and of 10 July 2003, Commission v EIB (C‑15/00, EU:C:2003:396, paragraph 102). 40 See, in particular, judgment of 20 December 2017, Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation (C‑664/15, EU:C:2017:987). 41 Judgments of 27 October 1977, Regina v Bouchereau (30/77, EU:C:1977:172, paragraphs 13 and 14); of 27 March 1990, Milk Marketing Board v Cricket St Thomas (C‑372/88, EU:C:1990:140, paragraph 19); and of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management e Catania Multiservizi and Catania Multiservizi (C‑561/19, EU:C:2021:799, paragraph 43). 42 Judgments of 27 March 1990, Milk Marketing Board v Cricket St Thomas (C‑372/88, EU:C:1990:140, paragraph 18), and of 26 January 2021, Hessischer Rundfunk (C‑422/19 and C‑423/19, EU:C:2021:63, paragraph 65). 43 Judgments of 1 March 2016, Alo and Osso (C‑443/14 and C‑444/14, EU:C:2016:127, paragraph 27), and of 24 February 2022, Tiketa (C‑536/20, EU:C:2022:112, paragraph 27). 44 See point 69 above. 45 English: ‘provisions of its national law’; French: ‘dispositions du droit national’. 46 ‘положения национального законодательства’. 47 French: ‘droit de l’environnement’. 48 Paragraph 1 of the preamble. 49 Paragraph 6 of the preamble. 50 Paragraph 6 of the preamble. 51 See judgments of 26 June 1975, Commission v Council (70/74, EU:C:1975:93, paragraphs 20 to 23); of 28 June 2005, Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission (C‑189/02 P, C‑202/02 P, C‑205/02 P to C‑208/02 P and C‑213/02 P, EU:C:2005:408, paragraph 211); and of 16 February 2017, H & R ChemPharm v Commission (C‑95/15 P, not published, EU:C:2017:125, paragraph 57). 52 See judgments of 11 November 1981, IBM v Commission (60/81, EU:C:1981:264, paragraph 10); of 22 June 2000, Netherlands v Commission (C‑147/96, EU:C:2000:335, paragraphs 26 and 27); and of 6 May 2021, ABLV Bank v ECB (C‑551/19 P and C‑552/19 P, EU:C:2021:369, paragraph 39). 53 Judgments of 11 November 1981, IBM v Commission (60/81, EU:C:1981:264, paragraph 20); of 13 October 2011, Deutsche Post and Germany v Commission (C‑463/10 P and C‑475/10 P, EU:C:2011:656, paragraph 51); of 15 March 2017, Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission (C‑414/15 P, EU:C:2017:215, paragraph 45) and Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission (C‑415/15 P, EU:C:2017:216, paragraph 45). 54 Judgments of 11 November 1981, IBM v Commission (60/81, EU:C:1981:264, paragraph 12); of 13 October 2011, Deutsche Post and Germany v Commission (C-463/10 P and C-475/10 P, EU:C:2011:656, paragraph 53); of 15 March 2017, Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission (C-414/15 P, EU:C:2017:215, paragraph 46) and Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission (C-415/15 P, EU:C:2017:216, paragraph 46).