Action brought on 6 October 2009 - Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission
(Case T-396/09)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Applicants: Vereniging Milieudefensie (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A. van den Biesen, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
declare the action brought by the applicants to be well founded;
set aside Commission Decision C(2009) 6121 of 28 July 2009, which is contested in this case;
order the Commission to examine, as to its substance, the request for an internal review within a period to be determined by the Court of First Instance;
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants are two Netherlands environmental organisations which, on the basis of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006,
1 requested the defendant to carry out a review of the earlier Commission Decision C(2009) 2560 of 7 April 2009, by which the Commission had authorised the Netherlands to defer to a later date compliance with its obligations under Directive 2008/50/EC
2 in respect of improvements to air quality. The applicants are challenging the Commission's decision to declare inadmissible their request for a review of the earlier decision addressed to the Netherlands.
In support of their application, the applicants submit, first, that, in the contested decision, the Commission did not invoke the restriction of the scope of Regulation No 1367/2006 set out in Article 2(1)(c) and that, as a consequence, it did not adopt the decision of 7 April 2009 while acting in a legislative capacity.
The applicants also contend that the decision of 7 April 2009 is individual, and not general, in its scope.
The applicants conclude by submitting that, if secondary Community legislation does not comply with the Aarhus Convention approved by the Council,
3 the legislation in question must be interpreted in accordance with that convention, and that, if this is not possible, the Convention must be applied directly by the organs and institutions of the Community. Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 should for that reason, according to the applicants, not be applied.