EN
C 472/44
Official Journal of the European Union
12.12.2022
4.
Fourth plea in law, alleging, with regard to the requirement of Do No Significant Harm (DNSH), breaches of Article 17(1) (d) of Regulation 2020/852 and of Article 10(2) of Regulation 1367/2006. 5.
Fifth plea in law, alleging the breach of the obligation of motivation.
(1)
(2) (3) (4)
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 of 4 June 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing the technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which an economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation and for determining whether that economic activity causes no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives (OJ 2021 L 442, p. 1).
Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters of 25 June 1998 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 4).
Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).
Regulation (EU) 2020/852 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).
Action brought on 14 October 2022 — SE and SF v Council (Case T-644/22) (2022/C 472/51) Language of the case: French Parties Applicants: SE, SF (represented by: S. Bonifassi, E. Fedorova, T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers) Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought The applicants claim that the General Court should: — annul Regulation (EU) 2022/1273 (1) in so far as it amends Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 269/2014 (2) and creates a reporting obligation at the expense of the applicants; — order the Council to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging that the Council exceeded its competence concerning restrictive measures.
According to the applicants, the reporting obligation is not a necessary measure to give effect to Decision 2014/145/CFSP (3) and that provision, therefore, encroaches on the competences of Member States to implement the restrictive measures.
Furthermore, the Council lacked the competence to create and define, by itself, an infringement to a reporting obligation that does not fall within the scope of a restrictive measure, and to harmonise the penalties for that infringement. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of power, since the reporting obligation imposed within a strict time limit, coupled with the obligation on Member States to penalise the failure to comply with that obligation by a sanction regime consisting, in particular, of confiscations, was adopted with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated. 3.
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, on the ground that the reporting obligation was not necessary and that the consequences of a failure to comply with the reporting obligation are, therefore, disproportionate with regard to the objective pursued by the regulation.