Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/48 |

---

Action brought on 18 April 2023 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission

(Case T-215/23)

(2023/C 235/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth AISBL (Ixelles, Belgium), Fédération Européenne pour le Transport et l’Environnement (Ixelles), WWF European Policy Programme (Brussels, Belgium), Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, J. MacLeod, Barrister-at-Law)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the decision of the Commission, sent by letter of 8 February 2023, by which the Commission rejected a request for internal review dated 9 September 2022 brought by the applicants pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council; [(1)](#ntr1-C_2023235EN.01004801-E0001) and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the Commission to meet the applicants’ costs of these proceedings. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in rejecting the arguments that it had been required to conduct — and had not conducted — a climate consistency assessment as required by Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council. [(2)](#ntr2-C_2023235EN.01004801-E0002) |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred as to the requirements of Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council [(3)](#ntr3-C_2023235EN.01004801-E0003) not only as to its analysis as a whole but as to:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | its interpretation and assessment of the requirements of ‘conclusive scientific evidence and the precautionary principle’; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | the lifecycle of economic activities; and |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | stranded assets and lock-in of emissions. | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in respect of errors surrounding the classification of activities as transitional, including by erring:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | in the classification of fossil gas based activities as transitional; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | in respect of the greenhouse gas emissions thresholds set; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | in respect of the contribution of alternative technologies; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | in respect of the requirement to phasing out greenhouse gas emissions; and |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | in respect of the development and deployment of low carbon alternatives. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in respect of the requirement to ‘do no significant harm’ to any of the six environmental objectives in Regulation 2020/852. |

---

---

[Top](#document1)