Case T-579/22: Action brought on 17 September 2022 — ClientEarth v Commission
Date: 2022-09-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU environmental policy, UN convention, biomass, climate change policy, economic activity, economic instrument for the environment, organic chemical, plastics, powers of the institutions (EU), technical specification








C_2023045EN.01001602.xml










6.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/16






Action brought on 17 September 2022 — ClientEarth v Commission
(Case T-579/22)
(2023/C 45/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Johnston, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s Decision, set out in a letter of 6 July 2022 (‘the Decision under Challenge’) by which the Commission rejected a request for internal review dated 3 February 2022 brought by the applicant pursuant to Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation (1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 of 4 June 2021 (2) made pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (3) (‘the Taxonomy Regulation’); and,










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the decision under challenge discloses a number of errors of law as to the scope of the Commission’s competence, insofar as the Commission disregarded a number of essential elements of the Taxonomy Regulation when making the Delegated Regulation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision under challenge discloses two manifest errors of assessment as to the scientific evidence concerning combustion of forest biomass for energy.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the decision under challenge discloses several manifest errors of assessment as to the manufacture of OBCs.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision under challenge also discloses manifest errors as to the manufacture of bioplastic.






(1)  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) (the ‘Aarhus Regulation’).

(2)  Delegated Regulation of 4 June 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing the technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which an economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation and for determining whether the economic activity causes no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives (OJ 2021 L 442, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (OJ 2020, L 198, p. 13).