Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:T:2025:754
Date: 2025-07-23
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: France

summary of the pleas in law, and that that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise as to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application, if necessary without any other supporting information (judgment of 7 March 2017, United Parcel Service v Commission, T‑194/13, EU:T:2017:144, paragraph 191). 24 It should also be noted that, in particular, for an action before the Court to be admissible, it is necessary that the basic matters of law and fact relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. Whilst the body of the application may be supported and supplemented on specific points by references to extracts from documents annexed thereto, a general reference to other documents, even those annexed to the application, cannot make up for the absence of the essential arguments in law which, in accordance with the abovementioned provisions, must appear in the application (see judgment of 7 March 2017, United Parcel Service v Commission, T‑194/13, EU:T:2017:144, paragraph 192 and the case-law cited). 25 In the present case, having regard to paragraphs 48 to 51 of the application, relating to the first plea in law, and to paragraphs 42 to 47 thereof, relating to the concept of ‘provisions that may contravene environmental law’, it must be found that the elements of fact and law on which the applicant bases its arguments, as summarised in paragraph 19 above, are immediately intelligible from the text of the application itself, even though the applicant refers to its request for internal review and to its second and third pleas in law to demonstrate that the objection at issue infringes the precautionary principle and Regulation No 1224/2009. 26 It follows from the foregoing considerations that, contrary to what the Commission submits, the first plea in law is admissible having regard to the requirements of Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure. Substance of the first plea 27 In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Aarhus Regulation, any NGO or other members of the public that meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of that regulation are to be entitled to make a request for internal review to the EU institution or body that adopted the administrative act or, in the case of an alleged administrative omission, should have adopted such an act, on the grounds that such an act or omission contravenes environmental law within the meaning of Article 2(1)(f) of that regulation. Such a request is to be made in writing and within a time limit not exceeding eight weeks after the administrative act was adopted, notified or published, whichever is the latest, or, in the case of an alleged administrative omission, eight weeks after the date when the administrative act was required. That request is to state the grounds for the review. 28 Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation defines ‘administrative act’ for the purposes of that regulation as ‘any non-legislative act adopted by a Union institution or body, which has legal and external effects and contains provisions that may contravene environmental law within the meaning of point (f) of Article 2(1)’. 29 Under Article 2(1)(f) of the Aarhus Regulation, the concept of ‘environmental law’ means ‘Union legislation which, irrespective of its legal basis, contributes to the pursuit of the objectives of Union policy on the environment as set out in [the Treaty]: preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, protecting human health, the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, and promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems’. 30 In those circumstances, the admissibility of a request for internal review is effectively conditional on the existence of an administrative act or an administrative omission that may contravene environmental law within the meaning of the Aarhus Regulation (order of 6 June 2024, Asociația pentru Energie Curată și Combaterea Schimbărilor Climatice v Council, T‑1151/23, not published, EU:T:2024:391, paragraph 12). 31 It is in the light of those considerations that the Court must consider the applicant’s arguments and determine whether the Commission could reject the request for review of the objection at issue as inadmissible on the ground that that objection did not include ‘provisions that may contravene environmental law’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation. 32 In the present case, in the contested decision, the Commission asserts that it had merely raised an objection in accordance with Article IX(5) of the Agreement for the establishment of the [IOTC]. As a result of that action, Resolution No 23/02 is not binding on the European Union, and the European Union therefore was not obliged to implement that resolution in its legal order. 33 Thus, according to the Commission, ‘the submission of an objection to the adoption of new rules, while continuing to respect the existing EU legal framework, including EU environmental law, does not result in adverse effects on the objectives of Union policy on the environment and therefore cannot, as such, contravene environmental law within the meaning of Article 2(1)(f) of the Aarhus Regulation’ (paragraph 2.1 of the contested decision). 34 It is important to note, from the outset, that the Commission did not reject the request for review as unfounded, on the ground that the objection at issue did not contravene environmental law, but as ‘inadmissible’, on the ground that that objection did not contain any ‘provisions that may contravene environmental law’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(f) of the Aarhus Regulation and that, as a result, it did not constitute an ‘administrative act’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(g) thereof. 35 In that regard, it should be noted that the administrative acts which may be the subject of a request for internal review under Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation are, pursuant to Article 2(1)(g) thereof, non-legislative acts adopted by an EU institution or body which have legal and external effects and contain provisions that may contravene environmental law within the meaning of Article 2(1)(f) of that regulation. 36 In the present case, the Commission deemed the applicant’s request for review to be inadmissible solely on the ground that it did not concern an act containing provisions that could contravene environmental law. It should be noted therefore that the Commission did not reject the request for internal review as inadmissible on the ground that other conditions provided for in Article 10(1) of the Aarhus Regulation, with regard to such requests, or set out in Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation, concerning the concept of an ‘administrative act’, were not met in the present case. 37 As regards the question whether the request for review at issue concerned an act that may contravene EU environmental law, it must be borne in mind that, according to recital 10 of Regulation 2021/1767, when assessing whether an administrative act contains provisions which could, because of their effects, contravene environmental law, it is necessary to consider whether such provisions could have an adverse effect on the attainment of the objectives of EU policy on the environment set out in Article 191 TFEU, which includes the ‘prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources’ and ‘promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems’. 38 In its request for review, the applicant, which was also supported during that administrative phase by Blue Marine Foundation, submits that the objection at issue could contravene the precautionary principle as set out in Article 191 TFEU. Moreover, more specifically, the objection at issue infringes Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 22), which sets out the objectives of the common fisheries policy (CFP), including that ‘the CFP shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.’ 39 According to the applicant, the objection at issue was also incompatible with Regulation No 1224/2009 on the CFP control system. The applicant notes, in that regard, that Article 14(3) of that regulation sets out that ‘the permitted margin of tolerance in estimates recorded in the fishing logbook of the quantities in kilograms of fish retained on board shall be 10% for all species.’ According to the applicant, the extensive use of FADs by French and Spanish fleets in the Indian Ocean for tuna fishing contributes to estimates being exceeded in that respect. 40 Therefore, it appears that the grounds for review submitted by the applicant in its request for review relate to potential infringements of concrete provisions of environmental law, enshrining inter alia the precautionary principle in the field of the CFP. 41 In that regard, it should be noted that, as is apparent, inter alia, from paragraphs 10 and 11 above, the second and third recitals of Resolution No 23/02 mention the conservation of fish stocks as an objective. 42 Thus, in submitting the objection at issue, the European Union actively opposed the adoption of measures aimed at increasing the protection of certain fish stocks. More specifically, the effect of that objection was that the European Union was not required to establish and implement the measures provided for in Resolution No 23/02 in its legal order. 43 Consequently, contrary to what the Commission stated in the contested decision and even though the objection at issue did not result in any change in the state of environmental law of the European Union, the objection at issue was capable of producing adverse effects on the attainment of the objectives of EU policy on the environment set out in Article 191 TFEU. 44 In that context, it should be noted that it follows from recital 11 of the Aarhus Regulation that even an omission can be the subject of a request for review even though, by definition, such an omission does not change the environmental law of the European Union. 45 In those circumstances, the Commission erred in rejecting the applicant’s request for review as inadmissible on the ground given in the contested decision without examining in substance if the grounds for review put forward by the applicant were such as to give rise to plausible, that is to say, substantial, doubts as to the assessment of environmental law by the EU institution or body upon submission of the objection at issue (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 September 2019, TestBioTech and Others v Commission, C‑82/17 P, EU:C:2019:719, paragraph 69, and of 6 October 2021, ClientEarth v Commission, C‑458/19 P, EU:C:2021:802, paragraph 60). 46 Accordingly, the first plea in law must be upheld and the contested decision must be annulled, and there is no need to examine the second and third pleas. Costs 47 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. Since the Commission has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant. 48 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. The Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic must therefore bear their own costs. 49 Under Article 138(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the General Court may order an intervener other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof to bear its own costs. Blue Marine Foundation, which intervened in support of the form of order sought by the applicant, must bear its own costs, given that it did not request that the Commission be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) hereby: 1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission, notified to Bloom by letter of 30 August 2023, with reference Ares (2023) 5917994, and rejecting as inadmissible Bloom’s request for internal review of the Commission’s letter objecting to Resolution No 23/02 on the management of fish aggregating devices in the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission area of competence; 2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bloom; 3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and Blue Marine Foundation to bear their own costs. Kowalik-Bańczyk Buttigieg Hesse Dimitrakopoulos Ricziová Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 23 July 2025. [Signatures] * Language of the case: French.