Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/36 |

---

Appeal brought on 30 May 2023 by Association Trinationale de Protection Nucléaire (ATPN) against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 March 2023 in Case T-567/22, ATPN v Commission

(Case C-340/23 P)

(2023/C 252/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Association Trinationale de Protection Nucléaire (ATPN) (represented by: C. Lepage, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | declare the appeal admissible and well founded; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | set aside in its entirety the order of 30 March 2023 delivered by the General Court in Case T-567/22; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | grant the form of order sought before the General Court and, consequently, dealing with the substance of the case, |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 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;  and, in any event, |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on:

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | two grounds seeking to have the order set aside:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | 1. | The General Court erred in law in holding, in paragraphs 16 to 27 of the order under appeal, that the appellant did not have standing to bring an action in its own name, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | 2. | The General Court erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in holding, in paragraphs 28 to 42 of the order under appeal, that the appellant did not have standing to bring an action on behalf of its members, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | five grounds seeking annulment of the regulation:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | 1. | The procedure is unlawful in that it disregards the provisions of Regulation 2020/852 of 18 June 2020; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | 2. | The rules of taxonomy were breached; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | 3. | The provisions of Article 19 of Regulation 2020/852 of 18 June 2020 were disregarded and the objectives are insufficiently ambitious; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | 4. | The general principles of EU law and, more specifically, the precautionary principle provided for in Article 19 of Regulation 2020/852 were disregarded; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | 5. | Investments in nuclear energy and green investments are incompatible in terms of financial reporting. | |

---

[Top](#document1)