Case T-719/25: Action brought on 17 October 2025 – Orlen v Commission
Date: 2025-10-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: carbon neutrality, clean technology, equal treatment, gas industry, industrial pollution, oil industry, right to property, rule of law, sustainable development








C_202506642EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6642


22.12.2025






Action brought on 17 October 2025 – Orlen v Commission


(Case T-719/25)

(C/2025/6642)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Orlen S.A. (Płock, Poland) (represented by: M. Szambelańczyk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the Decision in its entirety on the basis of Article 263 TFEU;










—


annul the Regulation in its entirety on the basis of Article 263 TFEU;
alternatively,










—


declare the Regulation inapplicable to the applicant on the basis of Article 277 TFEU;










—


declare Article 23 NZIA inapplicable to the applicant on the basis of Article 277 TFEU;










—


order the defendant to pay costs of these proceedings; and,










—


take such other or further measures as justice may require.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, seeking the annulment of 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 (the ‘Decision’) and of 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 (‘Regulation’), and in the alternative, the inapplicability of Article 23 of 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 (‘NZIA’), the applicant relies on ten pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that Article 23 NZIA and the subsequent acts issued on the basis of this Article 23 NZIA (the Regulation and the Decision) were adopted in breach of Article 5(4) TEU and Article 114 TFEU, as they go beyond the approximation of laws.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 114 TFEU, Article 290(1) TFEU and Article 23(12) NZIA by providing the calculation methodology of the individual pro-rata contribution of obligated entities in the Regulation, even though this matter is not delegated to the Commission in the delegation of power provided in Article 23(12) NZIA, and by adopting the Decision which contents are based on these provisions of the Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that Article 23 NZIA, the Regulation and the Decision were adopted in breach of Article 2 TEU and the rule of law, as they have a retroactive effect and in regard to the Decision, the Commission adopted the Decision on the basis of the act which was not a part of the body of the European Union law at the time of adoption of the Decision.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that both the Decision and the Regulation were adopted in breach of Article 23(3) NZIA and Article 41(2) point (a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter the ‘Charter of Fundamental Rights’), as the applicant was not consulted individually, or at least as part of a closed group of entities holding an Authorisation, on the Regulation and was not consulted on the Decision at all.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that both the Decision and the Regulation were adopted in breach of Article 44(4) NZIA and Article 23(3) NZIA, as they were not sufficiently consulted with the experts appointed by the Member States.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that NZIA in regard to its Article 23, the Regulation and the Decision were adopted in breach of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2) point (c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the Commission’s commitments under the ‘Better Regulation’ initiative, as they are do not sufficiently state the reasons on which they are based and as the limited reasoning to the Decision shows, the Decision was based on incorrect data.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that both the Decision and the Regulation were adopted in breach of Article 23 NZIA, out of time, which was provided in this article for the adoption of both acts.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that Article 23 NZIA, the Regulation and the Decision were adopted in breach of the Commission’s commitments under the Interinstitutional Agreement and the principle of good administration, as they were adopted without the prior conduct and documentation of an impact assessment and without proper public consultation.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Article 23 NZIA, the Regulation and the Decision were adopted in breach of Article 5(1) and (4) TEU and Article 16, Article 17 and Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as the means implemented by the European Union are not proportionate and infringe on the applicant’s freedom to conduct business and the applicant’s right to property, while introducing solutions incompatible with the principle of sustainable development.










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging that Article 23 NZIA, the Regulation and the Decision were adopted in breach of Article 18 TFEU and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as they have a discriminatory effect on the applicant and other entities based in countries in which the geographical and legal circumstances make investments needed to meet the contribution obligation indicated in Article 23(3) NZIA difficult.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6642/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)