Case T-702/25, Metsä Board Sverige: Request for a preliminary ruling from Nacka tingsrätt – Mark- och miljödomstolen (Sweden) made on 24 September 2025 – Metsä Board Sverige AB v Naturvårdsverket
Date: 2025-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy production, greenhouse gas, industrial pollution, parent company, pulp and paper industry, subsidiary, waste management








C_202506311EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6311


1.12.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from Nacka tingsrätt – Mark- och miljödomstolen (Sweden) made on 24 September 2025 – Metsä Board Sverige AB v Naturvårdsverket


(Case T-702/25, Metsä Board Sverige)

(C/2025/6311)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Nacka tingsrätt – Mark- och miljödomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Metsä Board Sverige AB

Defendant: Naturvårdsverket

Questions referred







1.


Article 3(e) of the ETS Directive (1) defines an installation as ‘a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I are carried out and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on the same site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution’. On the basis of judgments of the Court of Justice, the Land and Environment Court considers that the following criteria have been decisive in interpreting when a unit (which is not listed in Annex I) is to be included in an installation in accordance with the second part of Article 3(e):






—


the unit carries out production independently in the event of an interruption in operations at the installation,










—


the unit has an impact on the total emissions of the installation and can thus independently, as regards the installation, increase or decrease the installation’s emissions; and










—


part of the production of the installation is carried out in order to meet the needs of the unit.




Are those criteria to be applied, in whole or in part, when assessing the first part of Article 3(e), namely whether two activities which are both listed in Annex I constitute a technical unit, or should that assessment be based on other criteria?










2.


In the light of the answer to question 1, what is the significance of the following circumstances in assessing whether the paperboard mill and the pulp mill constitute a technical unit?






—


Half of the pulp produced in the pulp mill is pumped as wet pulp directly to the paperboard mill. That represents approximately 65-70 per cent of the paperboard mill’s pulp needs. In addition, the paperboard mill purchases dried pulp that is soaked at the paperboard mill.










—


Steam and electricity are produced at the pulp mill as a result of the production of pulp. The paperboard mill purchases some of the steam and electricity produced in the pulp mill for use in the production of paperboard. The paperboard mill’s needs in respect of steam are mainly met by the steam produced at the pulp mill. Half of the paperboard mill’s electricity needs are met by electricity purchased from the pulp mill, with the remaining electricity being purchased on the open electricity market.










—


The paperboard mill and the pulp mill are located on the same site and have a common raw water intake and a common wastewater treatment.










—


In the event of an interruption in the operations of the pulp mill, the production of paperboard can be maintained at 80 percent of current capacity through increased purchases of external (dried) pulp, the leasing of mobile steam generators and the purchase of electricity on the open electricity market.














3.


Section 2.1 of the European Commission’s Guidance on Interpretation of Annex I states that units of different ownership that are technically connected but which are run by one operator with decisive economic power over the technical functioning of the units constitute one installation. In the light of the foregoing, how may the concept of an installation be understood when one production facility is operated by a subsidiary which is 70 %-owned by the parent company which operates the other production facility?






(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6311/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)