Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/6658

11.11.2024

(Case T-456/24)

(C/2024/6658)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Krone Commercial Vehicle SE (Werlte, Germany) and seven other applicants (represented by: E. Macher, M. Soppe and A. Dlouhy, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul the following provisions of Regulation (EU) 2024/1610 (1):

—point 2 of Article 1, in so far as it concerns point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1242,

—point 2 of Article 1, in so far as it concerns the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1242, to the extent that it relates to point (c) of the first subparagraph,

—point (g) of point 3 of Article 1, in so far as it concerns point (c) of point 11 of Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1242,

—point 4 of Article 1, in so far as it concerns Article 3a(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1242,

—point 10 of Article 1, in so far as it concerns Article 7a(c) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1242,

—point 17 of Article 1, in so far as it refers in Article 14(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 to point 2.6.3 of Annex I,

—point 1 of Annex I, in so far as it refers to Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 and points 1.1.3, 2.1.3, 2.5.3 and 2.6.3 thereof,

—point 1 of Annex I, in so far as it refers to Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 and points 2.2.1, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7.2, 3.1, 3.1.2, 4.1.2, 4.2, 5.1.2.3, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 6 thereof, to the extent that they refer to vehicles of category O,

—point 1 of Annex I, in so far as it refers to Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 and point 4.3.1 thereof, to the extent that the table therein refers to trailers or semi-trailers,

—points 1, 2 and 4 of Annex II (introducing the new Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2019/1242), in so far as they refer to vehicles of category O, and

—Part B of Annex IV, in so far as it refers to vehicles of category O;

—order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants specialise in the manufacture of trailers for heavy-duty vehicles. In support of their action against certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2024/1610, they rely on the following six pleas in law.

1.First plea: infringement of the applicants’ fundamental right to conduct a business (Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2))

Although trailers do not emit carbon dioxide in traffic, the contested provisions impose significant requirements on their manufacturers regarding the design of their trailers. Those requirements often ignore reality and concern aspects over which the trailer manufacturers have no influence. In addition, the taxes provided for if the targets are not met threaten those manufacturers’ existence. The applicants therefore consider the interference with their right to conduct a business to be inappropriate, unnecessary and disproportionate to achieve the legislative objective.

2.Second plea: infringement of the applicants’ fundamental right to property (Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

In particular, the applicants submit that the interference with their right to property caused by the significant taxes is unlawful because it is not adequate, necessary or appropriate to achieve the legislative objective.

3.Third plea: infringement of the applicants’ fundamental right to equality before the law (Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

The contested provisions also infringe the principle of equality. First, the trailers covered by the legislation are incorrectly included in the emissions targets and the tax obligation, while other trailers are not included, partly as a result of national authorisations or authorisations granted outside of the European Union. Second, with regard to reduction targets and punitive taxes, trailer manufacturers are wrongly treated in the same way as manufacturers of towing vehicles, the engines of which alone are responsible for the CO2 emissions.

4.Fourth plea: breach of the requirements of EU environmental policy (Article 191 TFEU)

The contested provisions also infringe Article 191 TFEU because they do not comply with the requirements of that article on account of their failure to have regard for specific situations and the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

5.Fifth plea: breach of environmental protection (Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

For the same reasons, the contested provisions also infringe Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

6.Sixth plea: infringement of the obligation to state reasons (second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU)

The legislature does not explain why the requirements for CO2 emission reductions should now also apply to trailers, in contrast to previous practice, or why that obligation to reduce CO2 emissions, to be implemented at most indirectly, should at the same time be subject to penalties with taxes at a level that threatens the existence of manufacturers.

(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) Regulation (EU) 2024/1610 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 as regards strengthening the CO₂ emission performance standards for new heavy-duty vehicles and integrating reporting obligations, amending Regulation (EU) 2018/858 and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/956 (OJ L 2024/1610, 6.6.2024).

(<span class="oj-super">2</span>) OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6658/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

* * *