Case T-711/25: Action brought on 15 October 2025 – OMV Petrom v Commission
Date: 2025-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: carbon neutrality, clean technology, equal treatment, industrial pollution, legal basis, oil industry, polluter pays principle, powers of the institutions (EU), principle of proportionality








C_202506634EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6634


22.12.2025






Action brought on 15 October 2025 – OMV Petrom v Commission


(Case T-711/25)

(C/2025/6634)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: OMV Petrom SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: J. Wileur, L. Kjølbye, S. Troch, D. Van der Eycken and K. Beikos-Paschalis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision in whole or in part;










—


annul the Delegated Regulation in whole or in part;










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, seeking the annulment, based on Article 263 TFEU, of the Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1479 of 22 May 2025
             (1) and the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1477 of 21 May 2025
             (2), the applicant relies on six pleas in law which demonstrate the illegality – and thus inapplicability ex Article 277 TFEU – of NZIA in whole or in part (e.g., Chapter III or certain provisions of Chapter III such as Articles 20 and 23).






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the EU has not been conferred competence to override the market economy principle and force private companies to build new infrastructure to create a new market. As such, the EU lacked competence to adopt Chapter III of Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s net-zero technology manufacturing ecosystem and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (‘NZIA’) (3). It also explains that, even if the EU had such competence (quod non), it could not rely on Article 114 TFEU as a legal basis for Chapter III of NZIA as its application requirements are not met. In the alternative and to the extent an appropriate legal basis would exist to push the creation of a market, the appropriate legal basis should have been Article 173 TFEU which confers supporting competence on the EU in the industrial policy area, or – in subsidiary order – Article 192 TFEU which confers shared competence on the EU in the environmental policy area.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Chapter III of NZIA infringes both the market economy principle and the very essence of the fundamental freedom to conduct a business by ordering private undertakings to engage in a new business and create a new market by making substantial investments to build new infrastructure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that Chapter III of NZIA violates the principle of proportionality by (i) imposing an obligation to create storage capacity at a level that is not based on objective criteria and that fails to take into account existing and planned storage capacity, (ii) imposing an obligation to create storage capacity that is manifestly inappropriate to achieve the objective of having a functioning CO2 capture and storage market and reducing CO2 emissions by 2030 (iii) committing a manifest error of assessment when assessing the economic impact of the obligation to create storage capacity on European oil and gas producers, and (iv) failing to consider less restrictive alternatives.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging that that the obligation to develop CO2 storage capacity infringes the polluter pays principle since EU oil and gas producers are required to make investments to address the CO2 emissions of other European industries.










5.


Fifth plea, alleging that the obligation to build storage capacity also infringes the general principle of non-discrimination by creating an unjustified difference of treatment between (i) oil and gas producers who produce in the EU and those who produce outside the EU and import oil and gas into the EU, (ii) EU oil and gas producers in Member States with very different demand for CO2 storage, (iii) private EU oil and gas producers and certain State-owned EU oil and gas producers that are exempted from the obligation to contribute to development of CO2 storage capacity, and (iv) EU oil and gas producers and EU coal producers that are not subject to the obligation to develop CO2 storage capacity.










6.


Sixth plea, alleging that the timeline to comply with the obligations included in Chapter III of NZIA is impossible to meet.






(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1479 of 22 May 2025 specifying the pro rata contributions to the Union CO2 injection capacity objective by 2030 from entities holding an authorisation as defined in Article 1, point 3, of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 2025/1479).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1477 of 21 May 2025 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 of the European Parliament and of the Council by specifying the rules on the identification of authorised oil and gas producers who are required to contribute to the objective of reaching the Union target for available CO2 injection capacity by 2030, on the calculation of their respective contributions, and on their reporting obligations (OJ L 2025/1477).

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s net-zero technology manufacturing ecosystem and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (OJ L 2024/1735).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6634/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)