Case C-739/25 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2025 by the Republic of Austria against the judgment delivered on 10 September 2025 by the General Court (Grand Chamber) in Case T-625/22, Republic of Austria v European Commission
Date: 2025-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU environmental policy, economic activity, gas, judicial review, legislative procedure, nuclear energy, precautionary principle, right of action








C_202600448EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/448


2.2.2026






Appeal brought on 18 November 2025 by the Republic of Austria against the judgment delivered on 10 September 2025 by the General Court (Grand Chamber) in Case T-625/22, Republic of Austria v European Commission


(Case C-739/25 P)

(C/2026/448)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Republic of Austria (represented by: M. Klamert, F. Koppensteiner and C. Krenn, acting as Agents, and by Professor M. Chamon and S. Lünenbürger, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, French Republic, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, Republic of Poland, Romania, Republic of Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

The Republic of Austria claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2025 in Case T-625/22, Austria v Commission;










—


allow the application at first instance seeking the annulment of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 (1);










—


order the European Commission to bear the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Republic of Austria puts forward four grounds.
First, Austria argues that the General Court applied an incorrect standard of review and failed to state reasons. It contends that the judgment under appeal appears to be unlawful in so far as the General Court incorrectly limited the scope of its review to whether the contested regulation was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment or whether there was a manifest error on the part of the Commission justifying the annulment of the regulation. That incorrect standard of review applied by the General Court results in a failure to state reasons.
Secondly, the General Court erred in rejecting the claim that there had been a breach of the procedural requirements of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (2) as the basic legislative act. A fresh impact assessment and a fresh public consultation should have been carried out before the contested regulation was adopted.
Thirdly, the General Court failed to recognise that the contested regulation infringes Article 290 TFEU since, by including economic activities in the nuclear energy sector within transitional activities, it regulates an essential element of the area concerned within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU, which was left open in the basic legislative act.
Fourthly, the General Court erred in not finding an infringement of Article 10(2), Article 17, Article 11(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of Regulation 2020/852.


(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation of 9 March 2022 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as regards economic activities in certain energy sectors and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as regards specific public disclosures for those economic activities (OJ 2022 L 188, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (OJ 2020 L 198, p. 13).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/448/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)