EN
3.7.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 235/49
— 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.
(1) (2) (3)
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) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’) (OJ 2021 L 243, p. 1).
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 28 April 2023 — VY v Parliament (Case T-224/23) (2023/C 235/63) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: VY (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers) Defendant: European Parliament Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — declare the present action admissible and well founded; consequently — annul the decision of 9 June 2022 notifying the applicant that his contract would be terminated and, in so far as necessary, the decision of 17 January 2023, notified on 23 January 2023, rejecting his complaint against the decision of 9 June 2022; — order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the damage suffered; — order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment with respect to the reasons relied on and infringement of the principle of proportionality.