Action brought on 24 January 2024 – ePURE and Pannonia Bio v Parliament and Council
(Case T-45/24)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (Etterbeek, Belgium), Pannonia Bio Zrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: M.-S. Dibling and G. Michaux, lawyers)
Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
annul Article 3 paragraph 8(c), Article 4 paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 as well as Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport 1 , in so far as they exclude biofuels produced from food and feed crops and intermediate crops from the definition and/or minimum shares of sustainable aviation fuels and impose a minimum share for synthetic aviation fuels;
order that the European Parliament and the Council pay their costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging that the defendants committed a manifest error of assessment by contradicting available scientific and technical data in preparing their policy, thereby violating Article 191 TFEU, and by failing to provide sufficient reasons, thereby also violating Article 296 TFEU, for the exclusion of Renewable Energy Directive (RED) compliant crop-based biofuels while granting preferences for synthetic aviation fuels (SyAF).
Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants violated the principle of proportionality by effectively enacting bans on the use of RED compliant crop-based biofuels, i.e. demonstrably sustainable feedstock, for aviation fuel.
Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants violated the principle of equal treatment by (i) treating equally RED compliant crop-based biofuels on one hand, and fossil fuels and palm oil based biofuels on the other hand, (ii) treating RED compliant crop-based biofuels differently in the aviation sector and in the road and rail transport sectors, and, (iii) treating biofuels made from RED Annex IX B feedstock differently compared to RED compliant crop-based biofuels, and (iv) excluding RED compliant crop-based biofuels from the definition SAF while bestowing a mandatory share of SAF to SyAF.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants infringed the principle of technological neutrality by enunciating as the core reason for the promotion of one type of fuel (namely SyAF) its ability to achieve up to 100% GHG savings, while denying similar favourable treatment to, and even categorically excluding from the very definition of SAF, RED compliant crop-based biofuels (and other SAF) that can exceed 100% GHG savings.
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendants failed to observe the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, as the Contested Provisions significantly deviate from RED’s treatment of crop-based biofuels, without proper justification, leading to a lack of legal certainty and the denial of the legitimate expectations of the operators concerned.
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendants misused their powers by adopting a measure for which its powers were not conferred.
Seventh plea in law, alleging that the defendants violated the applicants’ right to good administration pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the EU Charter”).
____________
1 OJ L, 2023/2405, 31.10.2023.