Case T-419/23: Action brought on 19 July 2023 — Kiene and Others v Parliament and Council
Date: 2023-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: environmental protection, environmental standard, equal treatment, greenhouse gas, light-duty vehicle, motor car, motor fuel, motor vehicle pollution, ownership, principle of proportionality, reduction of gas emissions








C_2023321EN.01006001.xml










11.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 321/60






Action brought on 19 July 2023 — Kiene and Others v Parliament and Council
(Case T-419/23)
(2023/C 321/67)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Lorenz Kiene (Hoya, Germany), Classic Tankstellen GmbH & Co. KG (Hoya), eFuel GmbH (Hoya), eFuel Projektentwicklung GmbH (Hoya) (represented by: A. Dlouhy, E. Macher and M. Soppe, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare points (a) to (d) of Art. 1(1) of Regulation (EU) 2023/851 null and void;










—


order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

As background to their application, the applicants, which are undertakings in the development, production and sale of carbon-neutral synthetic fuels for road traffic, claim that the contested regulations, which reduce the carbon emission values for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles in the European Union until 2035, were based on a measurement of carbon emissions only at the tailpipe of the vehicle in operation. All emissions occurring during the manufacture, sale, use and disposal of a product outside of the operation of the vehicle were therefore disregarded, without any justification. First, this fails to consider the occasionally high emission values, in particular in the production of battery electric vehicles and, secondly, fails to take account of the fact that the production of carbon-neutral synthetic fuels relies on carbon from the atmosphere or from unavoidable exhaust gases that would otherwise have gone into the atmosphere, and that the combustion merely releases the carbon bound during production again.
In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a breach of the applicants’ fundamental right to freedom to conduct a business (Art. 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) (the Charter));










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the applicants’ fundamental right to property (Art. 17 of the Charter) by de facto devaluing their previous investments;










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the applicants’ fundamental right to equality before the law (Art. 20 of the Charter) by treating, without any objective reason, carbon-neutral fuels (i) differently to electrical charging energy for battery electric vehicles and (ii) similarly to fossil fuels;










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of environmental protection under Art. 37 of the Charter because environmental pollution over the life cycle of the vehicles would not be taken into account and because the lack of openness to technology would lead to increased environmental pollution;










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of principle of proportionality under Art. 5(4) TEU because the contested regulations are not adequate, not necessary, and exceed what is necessary to achieve the carbon reduction aimed for by the European Union;










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirements of the Union policy on the environment under Art. 191 TFEU because environmental pollution over the life cycle of the vehicles is not taken into account, without any justification, is not dealt with at its source, and is not based on the principle that the polluter should pay, but is ultimately transferred to other EU countries;










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons under Art. 296(2) TFEU because the regulatory approach of the contested provisions, which deviates from other EU regulations, is not justified by the legislature.






(1)  
            OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.