Case T-391/16: Action brought on 19 July 2016 — Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission
Date: 2016-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to information, commercial vehicle, environmental standard, infringement of EU law, maintenance, motor car, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, pollution control measures, technical standard








C_2016326EN.01003201.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/32





Action brought on 19 July 2016 — Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission
(Case T-391/16)
(2016/C 326/55)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain) (represented by: F. Zunzunegui Pastor, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the action admissible and uphold the pleas of annulment raised in the application;










—


declare Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016, amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6), the subject of the action, null and void;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is null and void for lack of competence as a result of the Commission’s improper use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny.
In that regard, it is submitted that the Commission infringed Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).
It is also submitted that in so far as the contested regulation establishes a European system of new, increased thresholds for NOx emissions, it alters an essential element of a basic act, as a result of which the Commission failed to observe the formal requirements provided for its adoption, thereby infringing an essential procedural requirement.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of EU primary and secondary law rules and general principles of EU law
The applicant submits that the contested regulation disregards the provisions of Article 3 TFEU, Article 11 TFEU, Article 114(3) TFEU and Article 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The applicant also submits that the contested regulation:






—


infringes the provisions of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1), as regards the limitation of the maximum nitrogen-emission levels for diesel vehicles;










—


infringes Article 4 of above-mentioned Regulation No 715/2007;










—


also infringes Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 of 18 July 2008 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2008 L 199, p. 1).














3.


Third plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers:






—


since there was objective, relevant and consistent evidence that the purpose pursued by the Commission in the contested regulation, which increased the limit values of NOx emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles, does not accord with that expressed in EU law, nor that advocated by the Commission itself;










—


because the procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for dealing with the circumstances of the case has been circumvented. In so far as the Commission followed the regulatory procedure with scrutiny and not the ordinary legislative procedure, it infringed substantive procedural requirements in the procedure for adopting the contested regulation, which renders it invalid on the ground of a lack of competence exercised;










—


lastly, because the regulation referred to is also not in the interest of the Community.