28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/30

(Case T-509/20)

(2020/C 320/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Wimmer, C. Arhold and G. Ollinger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the contested decision adopted by the defendant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) in particular under the second subparagraph of Article 8(5), in so far as Article 1(1) of the decision in conjunction with Tables 1 and 2 in Annex I shows the average specific emissions of CO₂ and the CO₂ savings from eco-innovations for the applicant in columns D and I, respectively;

—stay the present proceedings pending a final decision closing the proceedings in Case T-359/19; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1035 of 3 June 2020 confirming or amending the provisional calculation of the average specific emissions of CO₂ and specific emissions targets for manufacturers of passenger cars and light commercial vehicles for the calendar year 2018 pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2)

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 in conjunction with Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158 (3) and Article 6(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. (4) The defendant infringed those provisions in its decision by omitting the required specific preconditioning from the testing methodology it used for its ad-hoc review.

—The Commission set out a specific testing methodology in Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158. In recital 10 of that decision, the Commission implicitly states that that testing methodology requires specific preconditioning.

—Without specific preconditioning, it is not possible to provide results that are verifiable, repeatable and comparable, contrary to the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

—Carrying out a test procedure without specific preconditioning also means that it is not possible to demonstrate in a realistic manner and with strong statistical significance the CO₂ emissions benefits of the innovative technology, contrary to the second sentence of Article 6(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

—Furthermore, without specific preconditioning there is no sufficient reference to the ‘regulatory test procedures’ of the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) or of the Worldwide harmonised Light-duty vehicle Test Procedures (WLTP), governed by Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 (5) or Regulation (EU) 2017/1151. (6) However, according to the spirit and purpose of the test procedure and to recital 9 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, the relevant test procedure should follow the ‘regulatory test procedures’, which is therefore also why — in accordance with the approach of those test procedures — specific preconditioning would have been necessary.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

—Furthermore, the defendant infringed Article 12(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 by declaring that the eco-innovations not be taken into account for 2018, notwithstanding that that provision expressly permits a decision not to take them into account only for the following calendar year.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.

—The defendant did not hear the applicant in accordance with the requirements of the general legal principle of observance of the rights of the defence or the requirements of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons.

—The defendant moreover did not state the reasons for the decision, in accordance with the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It refers in the contested decision only in abstract terms to deviations in the testing method. It does not comment on the issue relevant to the decision of whether and in what way the testing methodology requires specific preconditioning and whether the defendant approved such a testing methodology in Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO₂ emissions from light-duty vehicles (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 1).

(2) OJ 2020 L 227, p. 37.

(3) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158 of 30 January 2015 on the approval of two Robert Bosch GmbH high efficient alternators as the innovative technologies for reducing CO₂ emissions from passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2015 L 26, p. 31).

(4) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 of 25 July 2011 establishing a procedure for the approval and certification of innovative technologies for reducing CO₂ emissions from passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 19).

(5) Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 (OJ 2008 L 199, p. 1).

(6) Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 (OJ 2017 L 175, p. 1).