Case T-724/25: Action brought on 17 October 2025 – TotalEnergies EP Danmark and Others v Commission
Date: 2025-10-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: carbon neutrality, clean technology, equal treatment, gas industry, industrial pollution, judicial review, legal basis, oil industry, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition








C_202506645EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6645


22.12.2025






Action brought on 17 October 2025 – TotalEnergies EP Danmark and Others v Commission


(Case T-724/25)

(C/2025/6645)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: TotalEnergies EP Danmark A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark), TotalEnergies EP Denmark ASW (Copenhagen), TotalEnergies EP Italia SpA (Milan, Italy), TotalEnergies EP Nederland BV (s-Gravenhage, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Rard, B. Le Bret, S. Hautbourg, M. Gouraud, O. Catsoulis and M. Cosperec, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well-founded;










—


declare Article 20 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 inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, and consequently, annul Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1479 as devoid of a valid legal basis;










—


declare 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 inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, and consequently, annul Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1479 as devoid of a valid legal basis;










—


declare Article 3 and Article 4 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 inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, and consequently, annul Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1479 as devoid of a valid legal basis;










—


annul the 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; and,










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, seeking the annulment of the European 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 ‘Commission Decision’) and, by way of a plea of illegality pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, that certain provisions of the Net-Zero Industry Act (‘NZIA’) and the 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 (the ‘Delegated Act’), be declared inapplicable, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that Articles 20 and 23 NZIA breach the principle of proportionality.










—


The applicants consider that the relevant obligations imposed under Articles 20 and 23 NZIA do not rely on an appropriate impact assessment carried out by the Commission. As a result, the latter failed to put forward objective, verifiable factors that would allow an effective judicial review of the necessity and suitability of those obligations.










—


The applicants also consider that the obligations under Articles 20 and 23 NZIA impose unattainable objectives to be achieved by 2030, as demonstrated by concrete evidence from project development timelines and current progress.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the breach of equal treatment in the adoption of Article 23 NZIA.










—


The applicants consider that the scope rationale personae of Article 23 violates the principle of equal treatment. Firstly, it entails a differential treatment among oil and gas producers and therefore undermines the effet utile of the NZIA. Secondly, the breach of equal treatment lacks objective justification. Thirdly, Article 23 NZIA distorts competition among oil and gas producers. Fourthly, Article 23 NZIA distorts competition and grants an unfair competitive advantage to coal producers.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the freedom to conduct business by the NZIA, in that the obligation imposed to develop injection capacity by 2030 imposes a significant financial and operational burden, which constitutes a restriction to the freedom to conduct business which is neither necessary nor proportionate.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment and a breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in the adoption of the Delegated Act.










—


The applicants consider that the Commission breached Article 23 NZIA by redefining in Article 4 the denominator for the pro rata calculation, which artificially inflates the relative burden on the obligated entities. Furthermore, the approach adopted by the Commission in Article 3 of the Delegated Act results in a manifestly unfair and disproportionate allocation of obligations. By excluding the production of exempted entities from the denominator, the Delegated Act compels obligated entities to absorb obligations that would otherwise be distributed more broadly.










5.


Fifth plea, alleging errors in law and a breach of essential procedural requirements in the adoption of the Commission Decision.










—


The Commission Decision was adopted without proper consultation of the interested parties (namely, all the Obligated Entities, including each of the applicants) and is based on flawed and incomplete data, constituting a breach of the right to be heard. Moreover, the Commission failed to comply with the legislative requirement that individual obligations be calculated on a pro rata basis of total Union production, as provided for in Article 23(1) NZIA.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6645/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)