Case T-399/23: Action brought on 17 July 2023 — ClientEarth and Collectif Nourrir v Commission
Date: 2023-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, aid to agriculture, biodiversity, common agricultural policy, management planning, pollution from agricultural sources, powers of the institutions (EU), reduction of gas emissions, water protection, water resources








C_202300048EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/48


9.10.2023





Action brought on 17 July 2023 — ClientEarth and Collectif Nourrir v Commission
(Case T-399/23)
(C/2023/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ClientEarth (Ixelles, Belgium) and Collectif Nourrir (Montreuil, France) (represented by: C. Baldon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission decision contained in its letter of 5 May 2023 (Ares(2023)3182983) by which the Commission rejected the request for internal review dated 3 November 2022 lodged pursuant to Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation; (1)











—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the Commission’s decision rejecting their request for internal review of the decision by which the Commission had approved the French national strategic plan relating to the CAP (‘the approval decision’) in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 (2) (‘the NSP Regulation’), the applicants rely on four pleas.






1.


First plea in law, alleging several errors relating to the Commission’s competence to adopt the approval decision.
The first part, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by errors of law in so far as it concludes, first, that the Commission could not and should not carry out an in-depth check of the compatibility of the plan with the NSP Regulation on the basis of Article 118 thereof and, second, that the scope of the check which the Commission carries out under that article is limited to the ‘overall intervention strategy’ and the ‘overall contribution’ to the specific climate and environmental objectives set out in Article 6(1)(d), (e) and (f) of the NSP Regulation, without taking into account the potential effectiveness of the measures included in the plan in contributing to their achievement.
The second part, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in that it refuses to review the approval decision and considers that the Commission was competent to adopt it on the basis of Article 118(6) of the NSP Regulation even though the request for review demonstrated that the plan’s intervention strategies were not likely to contribute effectively to the achievement of the specific climate and environmental objectives of the NSP Regulation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging two manifest errors of assessment relating to the contribution of the plan to the attainment of the specific objective of Article 6(1)(d) of the NSP Regulation and to the long-term national target values deriving from EU law in the field of climate.
The first part, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in that it rejected as unfounded the arguments in the application for review showing that the intervention strategy provided for in the plan was not capable of making an effective contribution to achieving the specific objective set out in Article 6(1)(d) of the NSP Regulation, and concluded that the approval decision met the requirements of Article 118(4) of the NSP Regulation.
The second part, alleging manifest error in the contested decision in so far as it rejects as unfounded the arguments in the request for review showing that the intervention strategy set out in the plan is not capable of contributing consistently to the achievement of the national objective of reducing emissions from the agricultural sector by 18 % in 2030 compared with 2005 levels in accordance with Article 109(2), and concluded that the approval decision met the requirements of Article 118(4) of the NSP Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging two manifest errors of assessment relating to the contribution of the plan to the achievement of the specific objective of Article 6(1)(e) of the NSP Regulation and to the long-term national target values deriving from EU law on the protection of water resources.
The first part, alleging a manifest error of assessment in that it dismissed as unfounded the arguments in the application for review showing that the intervention strategy provided for in the plan was not capable of making an effective contribution to the achievement of the specific objective set out in Article 6(1)(f) of the NSP Regulation, and concluded that the approval decision met the requirements of Article 118(4) of the NSP Regulation.
The second part, alleging a manifest error of assessment in that it dismissed as unfounded the arguments in the application for review showing that the intervention strategy set out in the plan was not capable of contributing consistently to the achievement of the national target values deriving from Directive 2000/60/EC and Directive 91/676/EEC in accordance with Article 109(2), and concluded that the approval decision met the requirements of Article 118(4) of the NSP Regulation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in relation to the contribution of the plan to the achievement of the specific objective of Article 6(1)(f) of the NSP Regulation, in so far as the Commission rejected the request for review as unfounded, even though that request demonstrated that the intervention strategy was not likely to respond effectively to the priority needs identified by France relating to the conservation and restoration of biodiversity, and concluded that the approval decision met the requirements of Article 118(4) of the NSP Regulation.






(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).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 (OJ 2021 L 435, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/48/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)