Action brought on 18 December 2023 – ePURE and Pannonia Bio v Parliament and Council
(Case T-1165/23)
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: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
annul Article 10, paragraph 1(a) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2023 on the use of renewable and low-carbon fuels in maritime transport, and amending Directive 2009/16/EC 1 in so far as it considers biofuels produced from food and feed crops to have the same emission factors as the least favourable fossil fuel pathway for that type of fuel;
order that the Parliament and the Council pay their costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging that the defendants have committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to rely on scientific and technical data in preparing their policy on the environment as required by Article 191 TFEU and by failing to provide sufficient reasons as required by Article 296 TFEU, when considering that Renewable Energy Directive (RED) compliant biofuels have the same emission factors as the least favourable fossil fuel in the maritime transport.
Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have violated the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU by considering that RED compliant crop-based biofuels have the same emission factors as the least favourable fossil fuel in the maritime transport, as it is neither suitable, nor necessary with respect to the declared objective and less restrictive alternative measures exist to achieve the same objective.
Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants have violated the principle of equal treatment by considering that RED compliant crop-based biofuels have the same emission factors as the least favourable fossil fuel in the maritime transport. The principle of equal treatment is equally violated by conflating sustainable food and feed crop-based biofuels made from high iLUC-risk feedstock for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high-carbon stock is observed (i.e., palm oil) with other sustainable RED compliant crop-based biofuels, and by treating RED compliant crop-based biofuels differently in the road and rail transport sector and in the maritime transport sector. The defendants also infringed the principle of technological neutrality.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to observe the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, as RED 2018 and the Contested Provision of the FuelEU Maritime Regulation lack consistency by treating RED compliant crop-based biofuels differently, without proper justification, leading to a lack of legal certainty and legitimate expectations for operators concerned.
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have misused their power by adopting a measure for which their powers were not conferred.
____________
1 OJ 2023, L 234, p. 48.