Language of document :

Action brought on 11 October 2017 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-699/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion plants (notified under document C(2017) 5225);

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant invokes five pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(4) and (5) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 3(2) and (3) of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, annexed to the TEU and the TFEU, by using an unsuitable method of calculating the qualified majority when adopting the contested decision.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 3(10) and (13) of Directive 2010/75/EU, read in conjunction with Annex III to that directive, as well as Implementing Decision 2012/119/EU, by establishing the BAT-AELs (associated emission levels) on the basis of inaccurate and unrepresentative data.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality (Article 5(4) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 191(2) TFEU), by establishing excessively high BAT-AELs which are not suitable for or commensurate with achieving the intended benefits and aims, and also that it failed to carry out an impact assessment in relation to the contested decision.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 13(4) and (5) of Directive 2010/75/EU, read in conjunction with Article 3(12) of that directive and Article 291(2) TFEU, by exceeding the entitlements which it is acknowledged as having in Article 13(5) of Directive 2010/75/EU, as a result of introducing derogations from the application of the BAT conclusions by means of the contested decision rather than by means of an amendment to Directive 2010/75/EU.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 3(3) and (4) of Regulation No 182/2011, misused its powers, and infringed the principles of sound administration by introducing, without allowing for prior discussion, significant amendments to the draft of the contested decision on the day of the vote by the Committee referred to in Article 75 of Directive 2010/75/EU as to its opinion on that draft.

____________