EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0391
Case T-391/16: Action brought on 19 July 2016 — Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission
Case T-391/16: Action brought on 19 July 2016 — Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission
Case T-391/16: Action brought on 19 July 2016 — Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission
OJ C 326, 5.9.2016, p. 32–33
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
5.9.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 326/32 |
Action brought on 19 July 2016 — Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission
(Case T-391/16)
(2016/C 326/55)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain) (represented by: F. Zunzunegui Pastor, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
— |
declare the action admissible and uphold the pleas of annulment raised in the application; |
— |
declare Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016, amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6), the subject of the action, null and void; |
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is null and void for lack of competence as a result of the Commission’s improper use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. In that regard, it is submitted that the Commission infringed Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1). It is also submitted that in so far as the contested regulation establishes a European system of new, increased thresholds for NOx emissions, it alters an essential element of a basic act, as a result of which the Commission failed to observe the formal requirements provided for its adoption, thereby infringing an essential procedural requirement. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of EU primary and secondary law rules and general principles of EU law The applicant submits that the contested regulation disregards the provisions of Article 3 TFEU, Article 11 TFEU, Article 114(3) TFEU and Article 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant also submits that the contested regulation:
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers:
|