- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-739/17: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Euracoal and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Directive 2010/75/EU — Best available techniques conclusions — Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TB0739
62017TB0739
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 65/37
(Case T-739/17) (*)
((Action for annulment - Environment - Directive 2010/75/EU - Best available techniques conclusions - Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
(2019/C 65/47)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicants: Association européenne du charbon et du lignite (Euracoal) (Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium), Deutscher Braunkohlen-Industrie-Verein eV (Cologne, Germany), Lausitz Energie Kraftwerke AG (Cottbus, Germany), Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH (Zeitz, Germany), eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG (Chemnitz, Germany) (represented by: W. Spieth and N. Hellermann, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Becker and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)
Re:
Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of 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 (OJ 2017 L 212, p. 1).
Operative part of the order
1.The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.
2.There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Polska Grupa Energetyczna S.A. (PGE), the French Republic, Elektrárny Opatovice, a.s., and Saale Energie GmbH, Sev.en EC, a.s., Freistaat Sachsen, Elektrárna Počerady, a.s., the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Client Earth.
3.The Association européenne du charbon et du lignite (Euracoal), Deutscher Braunkohlen-Industrie-Verein eV, Lausitz Energie Kraftwerke AG, Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH and eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.
4.Euracoal, Deutscher Braunkohlen-Industrie-Verein, Lausitz Energie Kraftwerke, Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft, eins energie in sachsen, the Commission, PGE, the French Republic, Elektrárny Opatovice and Saale Energie, Sev.en EC, Freistaat Sachsen, Elektrárna Počerady, the EEB and Client Earth shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.
(*) Language of the case: German.