EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-252/25: Action brought on 12 April 2025 – FOP and Saipol v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0252

62025TN0252

April 12, 2025
With Google you find a lot.
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

EN

C series

C/2025/3076

10.6.2025

(Case T-252/25)

(C/2025/3076)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Fédération française de producteurs d’oléagineux et de protéagineux (FOP) (Paris, France), Saipol (Paris) (represented by: B. Le Bret, M.-A. de Chillaz and M. Gourand, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

annul the contested Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/108; (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging an error of law on the basis of the infringement of Directive (EU) 2008/2001 (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">2</span>) and of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/996. (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">3</span>) The applicants claim that, in adopting the contested decision, which amends Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/2666 without recognising as accurate, in accordance with to Directive (EU) 2018/1001 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/996, the typical values corresponding to the average value of greenhouse gas emissions from the cultivation of raw material in Member State territories classified as level 2 in the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (‘NUTS 2 region’), the Commission erred in law.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an error of law on the basis of the infringement of Article 291 TFEU. According to the applicants, Germany is the only Member State in respect of which, for the purposes of measuring greenhouse gas emissions associated with the cultivation of agricultural raw material in Germany, the Commission recognised as accurate the separate typical values according to type of soil (mineral or organic) for the same raw material and the same NUTS 2 region. Also, by adopting the implementing act contrary to the basic legislative act ((EU) 2018/2001), and by not providing for uniform conditions of implementation between the Member States, the Commission infringed Article 291 TFEU.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, regarding the input values of nitrogen from crop residues. The applicants claim that, in the contested decision, the Commission recognised typical values as accurate, even though Germany’s final report had abnormally low input values of nitrogen from crop residues (including rapeseed) compared to those of other Member States, which were neither scientifically credible nor consistent with decision-making practice. Accordingly, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers by the Commission. The applicants claim that by recognising, by the contested decision, the need to amend its Decision (EU) 2024/2666 by way of an amending decision, and by stating in that decision that it is possible to recognise as accurate different typical values for the same NUTS 2 region and the same raw material, contrary to the mandate of Directive (EU) 2018/2001, and without having proceeded in the same manner in any implementing decision regarding other Member States or third States, the Commission committed a misuse of its powers which affects the validity of the contested decision.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(3) TEU. The applicants submit that the Commission departed in the contested decision from its decision-making practice, applied consistently and uniformly in respect of all other Member States. In doing so, it has breached its duty of equal treatment between Member States, to an extent that cannot be justified by differences in situations.

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/108 of 22 January 2025 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/2666 as regards the data recognised as accurate for the purposes of measuring greenhouse gas emissions associated with the cultivation of agricultural raw material in Germany on organic soils (OJ L 2025/108).

Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast) (OJ 2018 L 328, p. 82).

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/996 of 14 June 2022 on rules to verify sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions saving criteria and low indirect land-use change-risk criteria (OJ 2022 L 168 p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3076/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia