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
—
(2019/C 363/44)
Language of the case: German
Applicant: ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and L. Buschmann, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
—declare, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, that the Commission infringed the second subparagraph of Article 19(4) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU (1) by failing to decide on the total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a significant capacity extension of the product benchmark sub-installation for hot metal of the installation (Installation ID 60) in Bremen, communicated to it by the Federal Republic of Germany on 12 April 2019;
—alternatively, annul the Commission’s decision of 19 July 2019 on the applicant’s request of 12 April 2019;
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law.
The applicant submits that the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 19(4) of Decision 2011/278/EU and not to reject the total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a significant capacity extension, communicated to it by the Federal Republic of Germany on 12 April 2019, since the requirements for a significant capacity extension within the meaning of Article 20(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU are met.
—
(1) Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).
—