Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/17

—

(Case C-564/14 P)

(2015/C 034/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Raffinerie Heide GmbH (represented by: U. Karpenstein and C. Eckart, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 September 2014;

—Annul Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council in so far as Article 1(1) of that decision, in conjunction with Annex I, Point A, to that decision, rejects the appellant’s inscription on the list submitted pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2003/87/EC and rejects the preliminary annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge to the appellant’s installation with the identifier DE000000000000010;

—Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

1.By its first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges infringement of its procedural rights. In particular, it submits that the General Court in no way dealt with the appellant’s main complaint, which was conceded at the hearing before that Court, that the Commission had not individually examined the hardship cases that Germany had submitted to it.

2.By its second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in assuming that Community emissions trading from the outset excludes individual hardship cases from being taken into consideration. It submits that the judgment under appeal therefore infringes Articles 11(3) and 10a of Directive 2003/87 EC as well as Commission Decision 2011/278.

3.By its third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court failed to have regard to the Commission’s duty to interpret in a manner consistent with fundamental rights and in doing so infringed Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU).

4.The fourth ground of appeal alleges a procedural error in the form of a distortion of the clear sense of the evidence because the General Court did not take the evidence of hardship submitted by the appellant into account in its reasoning.

5.Lastly, the appellant submits that the judgment of the General Court infringes the fundamental rights set out in Articles 16 and 17, in conjunction with Article 52(1), CFREU. That judgment, it argues, errs in describing Commission Decision 2011/278 as consistent with fundamental rights and proportionate.

(1) Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

(2) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

—

* * *