—

join the present application for annulment to the application filed by Carmeuse against Commission Decision 2022/C 160/09 of 14 February 2022, which is the subject matter of case no. T-385/22;

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

—

annul Commission Decision of 21 April 2022 instructing the central administrator of the European Union Transaction Log to enter changes to the national allocation tables of Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden into the European Union Transaction Log (1) to the extent that it sets a wrong number of free allowances to be allocated to the applicant’s installations Valea Mare Pravat, Fieni and Chiscadaga for years 2021-2025 and reduces:

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings;

—

take such other or further measures as justice may require.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs on the calculation of the number of free emission allowances to be allocated to Carmeuse’s installations. Indeed, the Commission committed a manifest error of law and a manifest error of assessment, as the contested Decision is based on the Commission’s request to Carmeuse to use a calculation method that contradicts the regulatory acts issued for Carmeuse installations.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached several fundamental principles of EU law when issuing the contested decision, namely the principle of equality, the principle of certainty and legitimate expectations and Carmeuse’s right to good administration and right of defence.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned as regards the number of free emission allowances allocated to Carmeuse’s installations, in that it does not detail the decision-making process, nor the reasons for rejecting Carmeuse’s arguments, despite them being raised in various instances, and it does not address the essential reasons for which the formula applied by the Commission supersedes the binding legislation.