Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

24 June 2026 (*)

( Environment – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2485 – Taxonomy – Transitional activities – Exclusion of the activity of manufacturing business aircraft – Manifest error of assessment )

In Case T‑77/24,

Dassault Aviation, established in Paris (France), represented by E. Mignon, D. Zygas and M. Mossé, lawyers,

applicant,

supported by

European Business Aviation Association (EBAA), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J. Derenne, D. Vallindas, A. Álvarez Vidal and C. Jadot, lawyers,

and by

Compagnie Daher, established in Marseille (France), represented by B. Kanovitch, I. Simic, G. Léonard and W. Hebert, lawyers,

interveners,

v

European Commission, represented by G. von Rintelen, B. Sasinowska and C. Auvret, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

European Parliament, represented by A. Tamás, J. Etienne and L. Taïeb, acting as Agents,

and by

Council of the European Union, represented by I. Gurov and N. Rouam, acting as Agents,

interveners,

THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber, sitting with five Judges),

composed of S. Papasavvas, President, E. Buttigieg, M. Kancheva (Rapporteur), E. Tichy-Fisslberger and F. Bestagno, Judges,

Registrar: H. Eriksson, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure, in particular:

–        the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission by separate document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 3 May 2024,

–        the decision of the Court of 11 September 2024 reserving the decision on the plea of inadmissibility until it rules on the substance of the case,

–        the order of 21 January 2025 granting EBAA and Compagnie Daher leave to intervene in support of the applicant and dismissing applications to intervene made by Daher Aerospace SA and Mr Dainis Liepa,

–        the decision of 21 January 2025 granting the Parliament and the Council leave to intervene in support of the Commission,

further to the hearing on 10 February 2026,

gives the following

Judgment

1        By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Dassault Aviation, seeks, in essence, the annulment of point 2 of Annex I to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2485 of 27 June 2023 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 establishing additional technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which certain economic activities qualify as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation and for determining whether those activities cause no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives (OJ L, 2023/2485) in so far as it adds a Section 3.21, entitled ‘Manufacturing of aircraft’ (‘Section 3.21’), to Annex I to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 of 4 June 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing the technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which an economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation and for determining whether that economic activity causes no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives (OJ 2021 L 442, p. 1) (‘the contested provision’).

 Background to the dispute

2        The applicant is a French group active in the design, manufacture and sale of business aeroplanes, military aeroplanes and space systems. In the business aviation sector, the applicant ranks third in the world.

3        On 18 June 2020, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted Regulation (EU) 2020/852 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (OJ 2020 L 198, p. 13; ‘the Taxonomy Regulation’).

4        According to the wording of Article 1(1) of the Taxonomy Regulation, that regulation ‘establishes the criteria for determining whether an economic activity qualifies as environmentally sustainable for the purposes of establishing the degree to which an investment is environmentally sustainable’. Recital 3 of the Taxonomy Regulation states that that regulation represents a key step in directing financial flows towards sustainable activities with a view to achieving a climate-neutral European Union by 2050.

5        To that end, the Taxonomy Regulation establishes, as is apparent from recitals 6 and 12 thereof, a unified classification system for sustainable activities (‘the Taxonomy’) which harmonises at EU level the criteria for determining whether an economic activity is environmentally sustainable, giving investors and other economic operators a shared understanding of the activities in question.

6        On 4 June 2021, the Commission adopted, on the basis, inter alia, of Articles 10 and 11 of the Taxonomy Regulation, Delegated Regulation 2021/2139, which includes two annexes that establish, according to a classification divided into economic sectors, the technical screening criteria to be taken into account in assessing whether an economic activity contributes substantially to climate change mitigation (Annex I), in accordance with Article 10 of the Taxonomy Regulation, or to climate change adaptation (Annex II), in accordance with Article 11 of that regulation. In the original version of Section 3 of each of those annexes, entitled ‘Manufacturing’, there was no mention of the aviation sector.

7        On 6 July 2021, the Commission adopted, on the basis, inter alia, of Article 8(4) of the Taxonomy Regulation, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 supplementing Regulation 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council by specifying the content and presentation of information to be disclosed by undertakings subject to Articles 19a or 29a of Directive 2013/34/EU concerning environmentally sustainable economic activities, and specifying the methodology to comply with that disclosure obligation (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 9).

8        On 9 March 2022, the Commission adopted Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 amending Delegated Regulation 2021/2139 as regards economic activities in certain energy sectors and Delegated Regulation 2021/2178 as regards specific public disclosures for those economic activities (OJ 2022 L 188, p. 1).

9        On 14 December 2022, the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive (EU) 2022/2464 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting (OJ 2022 L 322, p. 15). Directive 2022/2464 amended, inter alia, Articles 19a and 21a of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ 2013 L 182, p. 19). In the versions resulting from Directive 2022/2464, those articles provide for the inclusion, in the management reports and consolidated management reports respectively, of corporate sustainability information.

10      On 27 June 2023, the Commission adopted Delegated Regulation 2023/2485. Pursuant to Article 1(1) of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485, point 2 of Annex I to that delegated regulation adds, inter alia, a Section 3.21 to Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2139.

11      The content of Section 3.21 is as follows:

‘Description of the activity

Manufacture, repair, maintenance, overhaul, retrofitting, design, repurposing and upgrade of aircraft and aircraft parts and equipment.

…

Where an economic activity in this category does not fulfil the substantial contribution criterion specified in point (a) of this Section, the activity is a transitional activity as referred to in Article 10(2) of Regulation … 2020/852, provided it complies with the remaining technical screening criteria set out in this Section.

Technical screening criteria

The activity manufactures, repairs, maintains, overhauls, retrofits, designs, repurposes or upgrades one of the following:

(a)      the aircraft with zero direct (tailpipe) CO2 emissions;

(b)      until 31 December 2027, the aircraft, other than produced for private or commercial business aviation, meeting the margins specified below and limited by the replacement ratio to ensure that the delivery does not increase the worldwide fleet number:

(i)      having maximum take-off mass greater than 5,7 t and less than or equal to 60 t and a certified metric value of CO2 emissions of at least 11% less than the New Type limit of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard …;

(ii)      having a maximum take-off mass greater than 60 t and less than or equal to 150 t and a certified metric value of CO2 emissions of at least 2% less than the New Type limit of the ICAO standard;

(iii)      having a maximum take-off mass greater than 150 t and a certified metric value of CO2 emissions of at least 1,5% less than the New Type limit of the ICAO standard.

…

(c)      from 1 January 2028 to 31 December 2032, the aircraft meeting the technical screening criteria set out in point (b) of this subsection that is certified to operate on 100% blend of sustainable aviation fuels.

…’

 Forms of order sought

12      The applicant, supported by European Business Aviation Association (EBAA) and Compagnie Daher, claims, in essence, that the Court should:

–        reject the plea of inadmissibility;

–        annul the contested provision;

–        order the Commission to pay the costs.

13      The Commission, supported by the Parliament and the Council, contends that the Court should:

–        dismiss the action as inadmissible;

–        in the alternative, dismiss the action as unfounded;

–        order the applicant to pay the costs.

 Admissibility

14      By means of a plea of inadmissibility raised by separate document, the Commission submits that the applicant, first, has no interest in obtaining the annulment of the contested provision and, second, does not have standing to bring proceedings on the basis of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

15      At the hearing, in response to a question put by the Court, the Commission stated that it wished to withdraw the plea of inadmissibility based on the applicant’s lack of standing to bring proceedings, while maintaining that the applicant had not established its legal interest in bringing proceedings in the present case.

16      Thus, the Commission argues, in essence, that the annulment of the contested provision would not serve the interest relied on by the applicant in the application, namely to prevent its activities from not being regarded as sustainable for the purposes of the Taxonomy.

17      The applicant, EBAA and Compagnie Daher dispute the Commission’s arguments.

18      According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is admissible only in so far as that person has an interest in having the contested act annulled. Such an interest requires that the annulment of that act must be capable, in itself, of having legal consequences and that the action may therefore, through its outcome, procure an advantage for the party which brought it. The proof of such an interest, which is evaluated at the date on which the action is brought and which is an essential and fundamental prerequisite for any legal proceedings, must be adduced by the applicant (judgment of 4 June 2015, Andechser Molkerei Scheitz v Commission, C‑682/13 P, not published, EU:C:2015:356, paragraphs 25 to 27; see, also, judgment of 17 September 2015, Mory and Others v Commission, C‑33/14 P, EU:C:2015:609, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited; judgment of 18 October 2018, Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council, C‑100/17 P, EU:C:2018:842, paragraph 37).

19      It must therefore be ascertained whether the applicant is correct in arguing that the annulment of the contested provision is capable of having legal consequences and that the action may thus procure an advantage for it.

20      The Commission contends, however, that the contested provision does not adversely affect the applicant’s legal position, since it does not impose any obligation or restriction on business aviation activities and does not remove any right on which the applicant could have relied prior to its adoption. In the Commission’s view, the contested provision merely introduces an option for operators of aircraft manufacturing activities to classify certain activities meeting the technical screening criteria as ‘activities contributing substantially to climate change mitigation’ or as ‘transitional activities’ within the meaning of the Taxonomy Regulation and, thus, to better enable investments to be directed towards those activities.

21      In that regard, it should be noted, as the applicant has done, that the Taxonomy Regulation imposes on certain undertakings an obligation of transparency with regard to their non-financial statements.

22      Thus, under Article 8(1) of the Taxonomy Regulation, ‘any undertaking which is subject to an obligation to publish non-financial information pursuant to Article 19a or Article 29a of [Directive 2013/34] shall include in its non-financial statement or consolidated non-financial statement information on how and to what extent the undertaking’s activities are associated with economic activities that qualify as environmentally sustainable under Articles 3 and 9 of [that] Regulation’.

23      In accordance with Article 8(2)(a) and (b) of the Taxonomy Regulation, non-financial undertakings are to disclose for that purpose the proportion of their turnover derived from products or services associated with economic activities that qualify as environmentally sustainable under Articles 3 and 9 of that regulation, and the proportion of their capital expenditure and operating expenditure related to assets or processes associated with economic activities that qualify as environmentally sustainable under those provisions.

24      Article 8(4) of the Taxonomy Regulation provides that the Commission is to adopt a delegated act, in accordance with Article 23 of that regulation, to supplement Article 8(1) and (2) of that regulation, to specify the content and presentation of the information to be disclosed pursuant to those paragraphs, including the methodology to be used in order to comply with them, taking into account the specificities of both financial and non-financial undertakings and the technical screening criteria established pursuant to that regulation.

25      Recital 2 of Delegated Regulation 2021/2178, adopted on the basis of Article 8(4) of the Taxonomy Regulation, states in that regard that, ‘to enable investors and the public to properly assess the proportion of environmentally sustainable economic activities (“Taxonomy-aligned activities”) of non-financial undertakings, those undertakings should be required to disclose which of their economic activities are Taxonomy-aligned [and that] in addition, it is necessary to disclose to which environmental objectives those activities contribute substantially [and that] non-financial undertakings should therefore also provide for a breakdown in the key performance indicators of the proportion of Taxonomy-aligned activities based on each environmental objective to which those activities contribute substantially’.

26      Under Article 2 of Delegated Regulation 2021/2178, non-financial undertakings are to disclose the information referred to in Article 8(1) and (2) of the Taxonomy Regulation as specified in Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2178.

27      Point 1 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2178 sets out the content of the three key performance indicators (‘KPIs’) to be disclosed by non-financial undertakings relating, respectively, to turnover, capital expenditure and operating expenditure. It is apparent from that point that those KPIs are the result of the calculation of ratios, in which the numerator relates, on the one hand, to ‘Taxonomy-eligible economic activities’ and, on the other hand, to ‘Taxonomy-aligned economic activities’.

28      In that regard, it should be noted that Article 1(5) of Delegated Regulation 2021/2178 defines a ‘taxonomy-eligible economic activity’ as an economic activity that is described in the delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 10(3), Article 11(3), Article 12(2), Article 13(2), Article 14(2) and Article 15(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation, irrespective of whether that activity meets any or all of the technical screening criteria laid down in those delegated acts.

29      Article 1(2) of Delegated Regulation 2021/2178 defines a ‘taxonomy-aligned economic activity’ as an activity that complies with the requirements laid down in Article 3 of the Taxonomy Regulation.

30      It must be borne in mind that, in order for an economic activity to comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Taxonomy Regulation, that activity must, inter alia, under Article 3(d) of that regulation, fulfil the technical screening criteria established by the Commission in the delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 10(3), Article 11(3), Article 12(2), Article 13(2), Article 14(2) or Article 15(2) of that regulation.

31      It follows that taxonomy-aligned economic activities are necessarily taxonomy-eligible economic activities, that is to say, economic activities that are described in the delegated acts, which comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Taxonomy Regulation, including the technical screening criteria laid down in the delegated acts referred to in Article 3(d) of that regulation. However, taxonomy-eligible economic activities may not correspond to taxonomy-aligned economic activities if, although they are described in those delegated acts, they do not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Taxonomy Regulation.

32      In addition, under point 2 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2178, when disclosing information under Article 8(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation, non-financial undertakings are to identify, first, each economic activity, including a subset of transitional and enabling economic activities; second, the KPIs for each economic activity and the total KPIs for all economic activities at the level of the relevant undertaking or group; third, the KPIs related to turnover, capital expenditure and operating expenditure for each environmental objective and the total KPIs for all environmental objectives at the level of the undertaking or group, while avoiding double counting; fourth, the proportion of the taxonomy-aligned economic activities and the proportion of the taxonomy-eligible economic activities that do not meet technical screening criteria and the proportion of each taxonomy-eligible economic activity that is taxonomy-aligned; and, fifth, taxonomy-non-eligible economic activities and the proportion in the denominator of the turnover KPI of those activities, at the level of the undertaking or group.

33      As is apparent from a combined reading of points 1 and 2 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2178, the disclosure obligation imposed on non-financial undertakings under Article 8 of the Taxonomy Regulation is applicable to those undertakings in so far as their economic activity is a taxonomy-eligible economic activity, that is to say, an activity that is described in one of the delegated acts referred to in Article 3(d) of that regulation.

34      That assessment is not called into question by the Commission’s argument that, under Delegated Regulation 2021/2178, where the economic activity of an undertaking subject to the obligation to publish non-financial information pursuant to Article 19a or Article 29a of Directive 2013/34 is not described by one of the delegated acts referred to in Article 3(d) of the Taxonomy Regulation, that undertaking is still required to state in its management report or consolidated management report that its activity is not taxonomy-eligible. Indeed, that does not in any way detract from the fact that, where the economic activity is described in one of the delegated acts referred to in Article 3(d) of the Taxonomy Regulation, the obligation to publish information is that arising from Article 8 of that regulation, read in conjunction with point 2 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2178, which gives rise, in particular, to the obligation to publish information on the proportion of taxonomy-aligned economic activities and the proportion of taxonomy-eligible economic activities that do not meet technical screening criteria (see paragraph 32 above).

35      In the present case, it should be noted that the contested provision adds, inter alia, a Section 3.21 to Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2139. The economic activity in question is described in that section as the ‘manufacture, repair, maintenance, overhaul, retrofitting, design, repurposing and upgrade of aircraft and aircraft parts and equipment’. That section also states that, where an economic activity in that category does not fulfil the substantial contribution criterion specified in point (a) of that section, the activity is a transitional activity as referred to in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation, provided it complies with the remaining technical screening criteria set out in that section.

36      Point (a) of Section 3.21 refers to ‘the aircraft with zero direct (tailpipe) CO2 emissions’, whereas point (b) of Section 3.21 refers to ‘until 31 December 2027, the aircraft, other than produced for private or commercial business aviation’, meeting certain margins and the replacement ratio defined therein. Lastly, point (c) of Section 3.21 refers to ‘from 1 January 2028 to 31 December 2032, the aircraft meeting the technical screening criteria set out in point (b) of this subsection that is certified to operate on 100% blend of sustainable aviation fuels’.

37      It follows that the contested provision imposes on the applicant, which does not produce aircraft with zero direct (tailpipe) carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the obligation to publish in its management report or in its consolidated management report the fact that its activity of manufacturing business aeroplanes, although taxonomy-eligible, is not taxonomy-aligned, that is to say that it is not an economic activity that is environmentally sustainable within the meaning of Article 3 of the Taxonomy Regulation.

38      The annulment of the contested provision would have the consequence of making the activity of manufacturing aircraft produced for ‘private or commercial business aviation’ a taxonomy-non-eligible economic activity. That situation would render inapplicable, with regard to the applicant, the obligation referred to in Article 8 of the Taxonomy Regulation, in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in points 1 and 2 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2178. It follows that the applicant would no longer be required to state, in its management report or consolidated management report, that its activity of manufacturing business aeroplanes is not taxonomy-aligned.

39      It must therefore be concluded that, although the annulment of the contested provision would not have the effect of removing the disclosure obligation laid down by Delegated Regulation 2021/2178, the fact remains that such an annulment would allow the applicant to regain the flexibility to explain in its management report or consolidated management report how its activity of manufacturing business aeroplanes meets sustainable development objectives.

40      Consequently, contrary to the Commission’s contention and as the applicant maintains, the contested provision adversely affects the applicant’s legal position, with the result that, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 18 above, the applicant has a legal interest in bringing proceedings in the present case.

41      That conclusion cannot be called into question by the other arguments put forward by the Commission.

42      Thus, first, it is necessary to reject the Commission’s argument that the annulment of the contested provision will not have the effect of improving the status of the applicant’s aircraft construction activities by bringing them within the scope of activities that are environmentally sustainable within the meaning of the Taxonomy but, on the contrary, that it will worsen that status by depriving those activities of the possibility of benefiting from the advantages of that Taxonomy.

43      Indeed, first of all, it should be noted that the annulment of the contested provision would mean that the applicant would regain the flexibility to explain in its management report or consolidated management report how its activity of manufacturing business aeroplanes meets sustainable development objectives (see paragraphs 38 and 39 above), which cannot be regarded as maintaining or worsening the status of the applicant’s activities in relation to the Taxonomy.

44      Next, the Commission cannot claim that the annulment of the contested provision would deprive the applicant of the possibility of declaring as sustainable the research and development activities linked to the design of a future business aeroplane with zero direct CO2 emissions. It is common ground between the parties that the core part of the applicant’s activity in the business aviation sector concerns the design, production and sale of aircraft which do not have zero direct CO2 emissions.

45      Lastly, it is necessary to reject the Commission’s argument that the consequences of annulling the contested provision as regards the applicant’s financing options – which the applicant has relied on to establish its interest in bringing proceedings – are merely hypothetical and depend on the final decision of investors.

46      In that regard, it should be noted that it is apparent from recital 6 of the Taxonomy Regulation that the establishment of a unified classification system for sustainable activities is the most important and urgent action envisaged in the Commission’s action plan on financing sustainable growth, one of the objectives of which is to reorient capital flows towards sustainable investment in order to achieve sustainable and inclusive growth. Recital 6 also specifies that, as a first step, clear guidance on activities that qualify as contributing to environmental objectives would help inform investors about the investments that fund environmentally sustainable economic activities.

47      Similarly, according to recital 16 of the Taxonomy Regulation, ‘a classification of environmentally sustainable economic activities at Union level should enable the development of future Union policies in support of sustainable finance, including Union-wide standards for environmentally sustainable financial products and the eventual establishment of labels that formally recognise compliance with those standards across the Union[, while that classification] could also serve as the basis for other economic and regulatory measures[, and] uniform legal requirements for determining the degree of environmental sustainability of investments, based on uniform criteria for environmentally sustainable economic activities, are necessary as a reference for future Union law that aims to facilitate the shift of investment towards environmentally sustainable economic activities.’

48      Therefore, it must be concluded that, given the objectives of the Taxonomy Regulation, there is a sufficiently direct link between the presentation of the applicant’s economic activities as not taxonomy-aligned and the conditions under which it may access funding.

49      Second, it is also necessary to reject the Commission’s argument that the first plea in law in the action, alleging under Article 277 TFEU the illegality of Article 10(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation, which constitutes the legal basis for the contested provision, would call into question the entire taxonomy system, which would be contrary to the applicant’s alleged interest. In that regard, it should be noted that the fact that the first plea in the action may, incidentally, call into question the lawfulness of the delegation made to the Commission, in particular, to establish the technical screening criteria for determining how and to what extent an economic activity contributes substantially to climate change mitigation, does not appear to be inconsistent with the applicant’s interest in having the activity of manufacturing business aeroplanes included in the Taxonomy. A finding that such a delegation is unlawful would, in fact, mean that the establishment of technical screening criteria for a given economic activity would no longer come within the Commission’s remit, but rather within that of the Parliament and the Council. That finding alone cannot prejudge whether or not those two institutions will include the manufacture of business aeroplanes in the Taxonomy.

50      Third, the Commission’s argument that the applicant cannot base its interest in bringing proceedings on the fact that Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 places it at a competitive disadvantage must be rejected as ineffective. It should be noted that, as the applicant itself points out, it is solely in the context of the sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment between manufacturers of business aeroplanes and other aeroplane manufacturers that the applicant has put forward arguments relating to its competitive position, and not in the part of the application devoted to demonstrating its interest in bringing proceedings.

51      In view of the foregoing considerations, the Commission’s plea of inadmissibility, alleging that the applicant has no interest in bringing proceedings, must be rejected.

 Substance

52      In support of its action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law. The first is a plea of illegality, under Article 277 TFEU, in respect of Article 10(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation, on the basis of which the contested provision was adopted. The second plea alleges a breach of essential procedural requirements, in that, first, the Commission failed to gather all the necessary information before adopting Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 and, second, that the delegated regulation contains no statement of reasons as regards the exclusion of business aviation from the Taxonomy. The third plea alleges a breach of the principle of legal certainty, in that Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 contains no definition of business aviation. The fourth plea alleges an infringement of Article 19(1)(d), (f), (h) and (j) and (4) of the Taxonomy Regulation and, consequently, of Article 10(2) of that regulation, which sets out the factors to be taken into account in the development of the technical criteria. The fifth plea alleges a manifest error of assessment. Lastly, the sixth plea alleges a breach of the principle of equal treatment, in that Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 treats manufacturers of business aeroplanes differently and unfairly as compared to manufacturers of other aeroplanes.

 First plea, alleging that Article 10(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation is unlawful

53      The applicant submits that, since the contested regulation was adopted by the Commission pursuant to the delegation conferred on it by Article 10(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation, there is a direct and necessary legal link between that provision and the contested regulation. In those circumstances, the applicant raises, on the basis of Article 277 TFEU, a plea of illegality in respect of Article 10(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation.

54      The Commission disputes both the admissibility of the first plea and its merits. The Parliament and the Council also dispute the merits of the first plea.

 Admissibility of the first plea

55      The Commission submits, in essence, that the applicant has not identified in a sufficiently precise manner the provision of the Taxonomy Regulation in respect of which it raises a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU, thus failing to comply with Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

56      It should be borne in mind that, in accordance with Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure, the application is to state the subject matter of the proceedings, the pleas in law and arguments relied on and a summary of those pleas in law.

57      It follows from the case-law that the application must specify the nature of the grounds on which the action is based. Thus, the basic matters of law and fact relied on must be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. The application must therefore specify the nature of the grounds on which the action is based, with the result that a mere abstract statement of the grounds does not satisfy the requirements of the Rules of Procedure. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, the summary of the applicant’s pleas in law must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the competent Court to rule on the action (see judgment of 21 June 2023, Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission, T‑748/21, EU:T:2023:346, paragraph 78 and the case-law cited).

58      In the present case, it should be noted that it is unambiguously clear from paragraph 128 of the application that the applicant seeks to challenge the legality of Article 10(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation, in so far as, as it states in paragraph 129 of that application, the contested provision was adopted on the basis of that provision.

59      The Commission submits that the applicant referred in the application to economic activities, such as the use of business aeroplanes in the management of natural disasters, liable to be regarded as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation, which come within the scope of Article 11(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation, and not Article 10(3) of that regulation, thus creating uncertainty as to the scope of the first plea in law. However, it is apparent from the application that the applicant did not refer to such activities in the context of the first plea.

60      The Commission also submits that the uncertainty as to the scope of the first plea was reinforced by the fact that the applicant did not mention Article 10(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation in its heads of claim.

61      However, it should be borne in mind that Article 277 TFEU gives expression to a general principle conferring upon any party to proceedings the right to challenge indirectly, in seeking annulment of a measure against which it can bring an action, the validity of acts of general application which form the legal basis of such a measure, if that party was not entitled under Article 263 TFEU to bring a direct action challenging those acts by which it was thus affected without having been in a position to ask that they be declared void (see judgment of 17 February 2017, Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council, T‑14/14 and T‑87/14, EU:T:2017:102, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited; see also, to that effect, judgment of 12 February 2020, Amisi Kumba v Council, T‑163/18, EU:T:2020:57, paragraph 145 (not published) and the case-law cited). It follows that the plea of illegality raised by the applicant constitutes a plea in support of the head of claim by which it seeks the annulment of the contested provision, and not the subject matter of the present action, with the result that the applicant was not required to specify in its heads of claim that it intended to rely on the illegality of Article 10(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation.

62      Moreover, it should be recalled that, when exercising judicial review of legality under Article 263 TFEU, the General Court has no jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 December 2005, Infront WM v Commission, T‑33/01, not published, EU:T:2005:461, paragraph 171).

63      Although the Commission claims that it was unable to prepare its defence effectively, it is sufficient to note that it was able, without difficulty, to challenge each of the applicant’s arguments and to identify the provision of the Taxonomy Regulation the legality of which is challenged in the first plea.

64      Consequently, the Commission’s plea of inadmissibility alleging infringement of Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure must be rejected.

 Merits of the first plea

65      The applicant, Compagnie Daher and EBAA submit, in essence, that, in so far as the Taxonomy Regulation does not contain a list of economic activities for which the sustainability criteria set out in Article 3 thereof have been established, the delegation of power to the Commission by Article 10(3) of that regulation leads the Commission itself to choose the economic activities for which it adopts technical screening criteria in order to determine the conditions under which those activities may be considered to contribute substantially to climate change mitigation. They submit that the Commission therefore decides which economic activities are taxonomy-eligible and under what conditions those activities may benefit from the shift of funding in a decarbonised Europe. However, the choice of the economic activities in question, which involves political trade-offs between divergent interests, is the responsibility of the EU legislature and cannot therefore be delegated to the Commission without infringing Article 290(1) TFEU.

66      The Commission, the Parliament and the Council dispute that line of argument.

67      It should be borne in mind that, under Article 290(1) TFEU, a legislative act may delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act.

68      The possibility of delegating powers provided for in Article 290 TFEU aims to enable the EU legislature to concentrate on the essential elements of a piece of legislation and on the non-essential elements in respect of which it finds it appropriate to legislate, while entrusting the Commission with the task of ‘supplementing’ certain non-essential elements of the legislative act adopted or ‘amending’ such elements within the framework of the power delegated to it (see judgment of 11 May 2017, Dyson v Commission, C‑44/16 P, EU:C:2017:357, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited).

69      It follows that the essential rules on the matter in question must be laid down in the basic legislation and cannot be delegated (see judgment of 11 May 2017, Dyson v Commission, C‑44/16 P, EU:C:2017:357, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited.).

70      The essential elements of basic legislation are those which, in order to be adopted, require political choices falling within the responsibilities of the EU legislature (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 September 2012, Parliament v Council, C‑355/10, EU:C:2012:516, paragraph 65), in that it requires the conflicting interests at issue to be weighed up on the basis of a number of assessments, or if it means that the fundamental rights of the persons concerned may be interfered with to such an extent that the involvement of the EU legislature is required (see judgment of 26 July 2017, Czech Republic v Commission, C‑696/15 P, EU:C:2017:595, paragraph 78 and the case-law cited).

71      Identifying the elements of a matter which must be categorised as essential must be based on objective factors amenable to judicial review, and requires account to be taken of the characteristics and particular features of the field concerned (see judgment of 22 June 2016, DK Recycling und Roheisen v Commission, C‑540/14 P, EU:C:2016:469, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).

72      In that regard, first, it is apparent from Article 1 of the Taxonomy Regulation that it has as its objective to establish the criteria for determining whether an economic activity qualifies as environmentally sustainable for the purposes of determining the degree to which an investment is environmentally sustainable (judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 106).

73      Under Article 3 of the Taxonomy Regulation, an economic activity is to qualify as environmentally sustainable where it satisfies the ‘criteria for environmental sustainability’ laid down in Article 3(a) to (d) of that regulation, that is to say, where it contributes substantially to one or more of the environmental objectives set out in Article 9 of that regulation, does not significantly harm any of those objectives, is carried out in compliance with the minimum safeguards laid down in Article 18 thereof, and complies with the technical screening criteria established by the Commission in accordance with, inter alia, Article 10(3) and Article 11(3) of that regulation (judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 107).

74      Second, it is clear from the wording of Article 10(3)(a) and Article 11(3)(a) of the Taxonomy Regulation that those provisions delegate to the Commission the task of supplementing paragraphs 1 and 2 of those articles, by establishing technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which a given economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation and adaptation (judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 108).

75      It is also clear from Article 10(3)(b) and Article 11(3)(b) of the Taxonomy Regulation that those provisions delegate to the Commission the task of supplementing Article 17 of that regulation by establishing, for each relevant environmental objective, technical screening criteria for determining whether an economic activity in respect of which the abovementioned technical screening criteria have been established causes significant harm to one or more of those environmental objectives (judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 109).

76      Moreover, Article 10(5) and Article 11(5) of the Taxonomy Regulation require the Commission, when it exercises that delegated power, to take account of the requirements laid down in Article 19 of that regulation (judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 110).

77      The requirements referred to in paragraph 76 above include that laid down in Article 19(1)(a), which provides that the technical screening criteria are to identify the most relevant potential contributions to the given environmental objective while respecting the principle of technological neutrality, considering both the short- and long-term impact of a given economic activity (judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 111).

78      In addition, under Article 19(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation, the technical screening criteria referred to in paragraph 1 thereof are to ensure that power generation activities that use solid fossil fuels do not qualify as environmentally sustainable economic activities (judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 112).

79      Moreover, according to the case-law, the principle of technological neutrality means that the rules in question must specify the rights and obligations of persons in a generic manner, so as not to favour the use of one technology to the detriment of another (see judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 113 and the case-law cited).

80      It follows from the foregoing that, in Article 3 of the Taxonomy Regulation, the EU legislature defined the environmental sustainability criteria for determining whether an economic activity may qualify as environmentally sustainable for the purpose of determining the degree to which an investment is environmentally sustainable, without favouring the use of one technology to the detriment of another and excluding only power generation activities that use solid fossil fuels. The EU legislature thus left the Commission the possibility of supplementing the Taxonomy Regulation by putting in place technical screening criteria for adapting to future innovations by allowing the regulatory framework not to be fixed and able to take account of environmental and economic progress. It should also be noted that the Taxonomy Regulation focuses not on the type of activities, but on the environmental objectives and general criteria for determining whether a given economic activity is to qualify as sustainable, so that, apart from fossil fuels, which are expressly excluded, any activity may potentially be concerned by that regulation, under the principle of technological neutrality (judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 114).

81      It is apparent therefrom that the environmental sustainability criteria of economic activities were defined by the EU legislature in Article 3 of the Taxonomy Regulation and that that legislature left open the possibility of defining all types of activity meeting those criteria as sustainable, apart from fossil fuels, which are expressly excluded (judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 115).

82      In view of the objective and content of the Taxonomy Regulation, the essential elements thereof consist, inter alia, in the definition of environmental objectives, the environmental sustainability criteria provided for in Article 3 thereof and the requirements applicable to the technical screening criteria. By Delegated Regulation 2023/2485, the Commission established technical screening criteria that do not fall within such essential elements of the Taxonomy Regulation (see, by analogy, judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 116).

83      Similarly, in leaving the Commission the possibility of determining the technical screening criteria for all types of activities meeting the sustainability criteria, apart from power generation activities that use solid fossil fuels, the EU legislature made political choices coming within its sphere of responsibility as regards the essential elements of the Taxonomy Regulation (judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 117).

84      As a result, contrary to the contentions of the applicant, the determination of economic activities per se, and the establishment of technical screening criteria for each economic activity implementing the sustainability criteria, do not fall within the essential elements of the Taxonomy Regulation (judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 118).

85      That finding cannot be called into question by the applicant’s argument that the delegation of power to the Commission by Article 10(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation leads that institution to determine specifically the material scope of that regulation, by choosing the activities for which it establishes technical screening criteria itself. Indeed, as is apparent from the considerations set out in paragraphs 70 to 84 above, that circumstance stems from the very structure of the Taxonomy Regulation and from the policy choices made by the EU legislature when defining the scope of that regulation and the general criteria for the environmental sustainability of an economic activity, in Articles 1 and 3 of the regulation, respectively. In so far as that argument may be regarded as relating to the definition of the scope of the Taxonomy Regulation or the general criteria for the environmental sustainability of an economic activity, it must be noted that the applicant has not raised a plea of illegality against either Article 1 or Article 3 of that regulation.

86      The applicant’s argument alleging infringement of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must also be rejected. That argument is not connected to the legality of Article 10(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation, but concerns, in fact, the question of whether the exclusion by the contested provision of the activity of manufacturing aircraft intended for private or commercial business aviation from transitional activities undermines the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business, guaranteed by Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

87      In the light of the foregoing, the Court does not find that, inasmuch as it delegates to the Commission the power to adopt a delegated regulation in order to supplement Article 10(1) and (2) and Article 17 of the Taxonomy Regulation, Article 10(3) of that regulation was adopted contrary to Article 290 TFEU (judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 126).

88      The first plea must therefore be rejected as unfounded.

 The second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements

89      The second plea in law consists of two parts. The first part alleges infringement of the procedure for the adoption of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485, in that neither the applicant nor any entity representing the business aviation sector was duly consulted by the Commission in connection with the drafting of that regulation. The second part alleges failure to observe the obligation to state reasons, in that Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 contains no explanation as to why the manufacture of aeroplanes intended for business aviation was excluded from transitional activities.

 The first part of the second plea, alleging failure to consult the applicant or any entity representing the business aviation sector

90      The applicant submits that, although it is a relevant, interested private stakeholder, it was neither consulted nor heard in the context of the drafting of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485, despite the Commission’s consultation obligations under Article 23(4) and Article 10(4) of the Taxonomy Regulation. Thus, the applicant notes that no entity representing business aviation participated in the Platform on Sustainable Finance provided for in Article 20 of the Taxonomy Regulation (‘the Platform’). By choosing not to consult the applicant or representatives of the sector, who sent it numerous contributions and letters, annexed to the application, arguing for the inclusion of the entire sector, including business aviation, in the Taxonomy, the Commission failed to comply with essential procedural requirements laid down in the Taxonomy Regulation for the adoption of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485. According to the applicant, had those procedural requirements been complied with, the content of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 might have been substantially different.

91      The Commission disputes the applicant’s arguments.

92      In that regard, it should be noted that the contested provision forms part of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 adopted by the Commission on the basis, inter alia, of Article 10(3) and Article 11(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation, since such a delegated regulation falls, under Article 290(1) TFEU, within the category of non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act.

93      It is important to emphasise that, although the general principle of the right to be heard does not apply to acts of general application, the position is different where an express provision of the legal framework governing the adoption of the act in question confers such a procedural right on an affected person. Even though neither Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights nor the general principle of respect for the right to be heard require it to do so, it remains open to the EU legislature to provide for a right, for persons deemed to be affected by an act of general application, to be heard, consulted or informed and to regulate the exercise of that right (judgment of 29 January 2026, Commission v Zippo Manufacturing and Zippo, C‑811/23 P, EU:C:2026:48, paragraphs 59 and 60).

94      It should be noted that, under Article 10(4) of the Taxonomy Regulation, prior to adopting the delegated act referred to in Article 10(3) of that regulation the Commission is to consult the Platform. Article 20(1)(b) of the Taxonomy Regulation provides that the Platform is to consist, inter alia, of experts representing relevant private stakeholders, including financial and non-financial market participants and business sectors, representing relevant industries.

95      It should also be noted that, under Article 23(4) of the Taxonomy Regulation, ‘the Commission shall gather all necessary expertise, prior to the adoption and during the development of delegated acts, including through the consultation of the experts of the Member State Expert Group on Sustainable Finance referred to in Article 24 [of that regulation]. Before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall act in accordance with the principles and procedures laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making.’

96      Paragraph 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016 (OJ 2016 L 123, p. 1) states that ‘the Commission commits to gathering, prior to the adoption of delegated acts, all necessary expertise, including through the consultation of Member States’ experts and through public consultations’.

97      In the present case, with regard to the procedure for the adoption of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485, it must be noted that on 3 August 2021 the Platform published proposed technical screening criteria which concerned, inter alia, certain activities in the aviation sector, including the manufacture of aircraft. Those technical screening criteria were subject to public consultation until 28 September 2021. The Platform published its final recommendations on those criteria in March 2022. The Platform’s final recommendations were examined by the Member State Expert Group on Sustainable Finance, on 6 April, 8 July, 4 October and 15 December 2022 and 24 January 2023. The Commission submitted for public consultation, from 5 April to 3 May 2023, a draft delegated regulation setting out the technical screening criteria proposed by the Platform in order to gather stakeholders’ views, and adopted Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 on 27 June 2023.

98      It should be noted that the applicant does not contest the Commission’s assertion that, in the preparation of its recommendations on aviation activities, the Platform relied on the Steer study, which led, according to the Commission, to exchanges with associations of which the applicant is a member or which include business aircraft manufacturers among their members, such as the Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) or the Airlines for Europe (A4E) association. The applicant does not dispute the Commission’s assertion that the Platform’s working group on air transport included a representative from the aviation sector. Nor does the applicant dispute that several associations of which it is a member, such as the Groupement des industries françaises aéronautiques et spatiales (GIFAS), ASD and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), participated in the public consultation on the technical screening criteria proposed by the Platform. Furthermore, it is apparent from the file that the applicant itself (Annex A.3 to the application) as well as Compagnie Daher, EBAA, GAMA, GIFAS, ASD and Liebherr-Aerospace Toulouse SAS (Annexes A.4 to A.9 to the application) participated in the public consultation on the draft delegated regulation organised by the Commission.

99      In those circumstances, the applicant cannot seriously argue that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(4) and Article 23(4) of the Taxonomy Regulation.

100    Furthermore, it should be emphasised that, in so far as the applicant criticises the Commission for failing to respond favourably to its observations or those of representatives of the business aviation sector in Delegated Regulation 2023/2485, such an argument must be rejected, since it does not concern the infringement of a procedural obligation but rather the merits of the contested provision.

101    In view of the foregoing considerations, the first part of the second plea must be rejected as unfounded.

 The second part of the second plea in law, alleging failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons

102    The applicant complains that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. In that regard, the applicant observes that neither Section 3.21 nor the recitals of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 provide reasons for the exclusion of business aviation from the Taxonomy.

103    The applicant observes that Commission working document SWD(2023) 239 final/2 of 4 July 2023 (‘the Commission working document’) does indeed contain a justification for that exclusion, but argues that it does not constitute a sufficient statement of reasons, in so far as, first, the working document in question is a separate act from Delegated Regulation 2023/2485, second, that working document is a preparatory act and does not have the same legal value as the delegated regulation and, third, in order to give meaning to the exclusion of business aviation from the Taxonomy provided for in Section 3.21, the Court would have to interpret the contested provision solely in the light of the working document, which is contrary to the case-law.

104    The applicant submits that, in any event, the justification set out in the Commission working document does not explain why the operation of business aeroplanes could be aligned with the Taxonomy, whereas the manufacture of those aeroplanes never would be, except in the case of carbon-neutral aeroplanes.

105    EBAA states that the decision to exclude private or commercial business aviation from the Taxonomy cannot be treated as a technical choice requiring no further explanation, particularly in the light of the proposals made by EBAA and the applicant during the consultation procedure that aircraft carrying at least 19 passengers, irrespective of their use, should be included in the Taxonomy, and to align with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards on CO2 emissions. It argues that the Commission was, in fact, subject to an enhanced obligation to state reasons in that regard, in view of the numerous opinions expressed during that procedure opposing the exclusion of private or commercial business aviation from the Taxonomy, and the fact that Ms Mairead McGuinness, then European Commissioner for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, had indicated, in a letter dated 22 March 2023 in response to requests to that effect from 13 associations in the aviation sector, that she was willing to consider the inclusion of business aviation in the Taxonomy.

106    Compagnie Daher adds that the justification for the exclusion of private or commercial business aviation from the Taxonomy set out in the Commission working document relates to the activity of operating aircraft, and therefore does not explain the exclusion of the activity of manufacturing aircraft for business aviation. According to Compagnie Daher, the requirement for the Commission to state reasons in the present case is all the more compelling given that it adopted Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 within the framework of a delegation conferring on it a particularly broad discretion.

107    The Commission disputes the applicant’s arguments.

108    In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, ‘legal acts shall state the reasons on which they are based and shall refer to any proposals, initiatives, recommendations, requests or opinions required by the Treaties’.

109    The statement of reasons required by the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution that adopted that measure in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for it and to enable the EU judicature to exercise its power of review. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (see judgment of 10 July 2025, Ligue royale belge pour la protection des oiseaux, C‑287/24, EU:C:2025:550, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).

110    Thus, the reasons given for a decision adversely affecting a person are sufficient if it was adopted in circumstances known to the party concerned which enable him or her to understand the scope of the measure concerning him or her (see judgment of 17 September 2020, Rosneft and Others v Council, C‑732/18 P, not published, EU:C:2020:727, paragraph 78 and the case-law cited).

111    In the present case, it is apparent from recital 3 of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 that the transport sector and its value chain fall to a large extent within the scope of economic activities which are not covered by Delegated Regulation 2021/2139 and for which it is therefore necessary to lay down additional technical screening criteria to further facilitate environmentally sustainable investment.

112    In addition, recital 11 of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 states that ‘all modes of transport are indispensable for the transport system, and … aviation plays a crucial role in fostering cohesion, connectivity, and access to the internal market for all regions’ of the European Union. That recital also states that ‘aviation has an important potential to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, to contribute to the decarbonisation of transport, and thus has the potential to contribute substantially to climate change mitigation’ and that it is therefore ‘necessary to lay down technical screening criteria for the manufacturing of aircraft, leasing, passenger and freight air transport and air transport ground handling operations’. With regard to the sustainable or transitional nature of aviation, recital 11 of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 states that ‘zero-emission commercial air transport operated with zero direct CO2 emissions or entirely on sustainable aviation fuels is not yet technologically available[, and] until such zero-emission commercial air transport is technologically available, air transport should be considered as a transitional activity, with the technical screening criteria based on best available technologies for airframe and engine fuel efficiency, and based on the potential to reduce substantially greenhouse gas emissions over the life cycle of aircraft through the progressive uptake of sustainable aviation fuels’.

113    It is thus apparent from recital 11 of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485, inter alia, that aviation has the potential to contribute substantially to climate change mitigation and that it is therefore necessary to lay down technical screening criteria for certain activities in that sector, including the manufacturing of aircraft and passenger and freight air transport. It is also apparent from that recital that, in so far as zero-emission commercial air transport is not yet technologically available, air transport activities must be considered as transitional, and the technical screening criteria laid down for that purpose must be based on the best available technologies for airframe and engine fuel efficiency and on the potential to reduce substantially greenhouse gas emissions over the life cycle of aircraft through the progressive uptake of sustainable aviation fuels (‘SAF’).

114    It should be noted that the explanatory memorandum to Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 states that, ‘where [that delegated act] establishes technical screening criteria for transitional activities as referred to in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation, those criteria are set out for economic activities for which at present there is no technologically and economically feasible low-carbon alternative and which would be necessary in the transition towards climate neutrality’.

115    The explanatory memorandum to Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 also states that that delegated regulation is ‘supported by an analytical Staff Working Document that … explains the approach taken for the definition of the specific technical screening criteria, including how those criteria are expected to work in practice [and] any divergences or additions made to the Platform’s recommendations’.

116    Section 4 of the earlier version of the Commission working document, published on 27 June 2023, that is to say, at the same time as the adoption of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485, contains a Section 4.5, entitled ‘Substantial contribution to climate change mitigation’, which in turn contains a subsection 4.5.2, relating to transport.

117    Subsection 4.5.2 of the Commission working document states, as regards the type of substantial contribution that had been chosen for air transport:

‘For aircraft manufacturing and leasing and passenger and freight air transport, the Platform proposed substantial contribution criteria to climate mitigation by covering: (i) zero direct CO2 emissions aircraft as low carbon activities, as well as (ii) the latest generation aircraft technology providing a significant performance improvement in terms of fuel efficiency and related GHG emissions reduction compared to the previous generation of aircraft and (iii) operation of an aircraft with [SAF] as transitional activities. The air transport criteria … aim, first, to accelerate the development and market introduction of zero direct CO2 emission aircraft. Second, they aim to incentivise the market uptake and replacement of previous generation, less fuel-efficient aircraft with the latest generation of fuel-efficient ones without contributing to fleet expansion. Third, they aim to incentivise the replacement of fossil jet fuel with [SAF]. The criteria also incentivise the technical readiness of the aircraft fleet to operate with 100% SAF.

… The latest generation aircraft are identified [on the basis] of their fuel efficiency and associated GHG performance in relation to the margins to the [ICAO] new type (NT) CO2 standard and differentiated by three aircraft classes according to their maximum take-off mass. The aircraft not meeting the margins represent the previous generation aircraft that are significantly less fuel efficient. …

The latest generation aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation are excluded considering their per passenger kilometre CO2 footprint compared to available transport alternatives. Further work would be needed to demonstrate how the manufacturing of such aircraft could contribute to the Taxonomy objectives. However, manufacturing of zero direct CO2 emissions aircraft is fully compatible with Taxonomy criteria regardless of its end use.

…’

118    It is thus clear from the explanatory memorandum to Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 and Section 4.5.2 of the Commission working document that the Commission considered that the activity of manufacturing aircraft ‘produced for private or commercial business aviation’ did not meet the conditions laid down in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation for the establishment of technical screening criteria, given the CO2 footprint per passenger kilometre of the latest generation aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation compared to that of alternative means of transport available.

119    It is important to emphasise in that regard that the applicant could not have been unaware of the context in which Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 had been adopted, given its participation in the public consultation procedure concerning the proposed technical screening criteria put forward by the Platform (see paragraph 98 above).

120    It follows that the applicant was in a position to understand why Section 3.21 excluded the activity of manufacturing aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation from the activities for which technical screening criteria were provided in respect of the transitional activities referred to in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation. That finding is, moreover, confirmed by the arguments put forward by the applicant in support of the fifth plea in law, which specifically concern the explanation provided by the Commission in its working document.

121    Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, the obligation to state reasons is an essential procedural requirement, as distinct from the question whether the reasons given are well-founded, which goes to the substantive legality of the contested measure (judgment of 22 March 2001, France v Commission, C‑17/99, EU:C:2001:178, paragraph 35; see judgment of 10 September 2024, Commission v Ireland and Others, C‑465/20 P, EU:C:2024:724, paragraph 389 and the case-law cited).

122    The reasoning of a decision consists in a formal statement of the grounds on which that decision is based. If those grounds are vitiated by errors, the latter will affect the substantive legality of the decision, but not the statement of reasons in it, which may be adequate even though it sets out reasons which are incorrect. It follows that objections and arguments intended to establish that a measure is not well founded are irrelevant in the context of a plea alleging an inadequate statement of reasons or a lack of such a statement (see judgment of 18 June 2015, Ipatau v Council, C‑535/14 P, EU:C:2015:407, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

123    Consequently, Compagnie Daher’s argument that the explanation contained in the Commission working document concerns the operation of aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation, rather than their manufacture, must be rejected, in so far as, by that argument, it seeks, in essence, to challenge the merits of that explanation, which is a question which is distinct from that relating to failure to observe the obligation to state reasons.

124    In view of the considerations set out above, it must be held that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the Commission did not fail to observe the obligation to provide a proper statement of reasons incumbent upon it pursuant to the case-law referred to in paragraphs 109 and 110 above.

125    Therefore, the second part of the second plea must be rejected as unfounded and, accordingly, the second plea in law must be rejected in its entirety.

 The fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment

126    The applicant submits, in the context of the fifth plea, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in excluding the activity of manufacturing aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation from the activities for which technical screening criteria were provided in respect of transitional activities, on the ground that those aircraft have a higher CO2 emissions footprint per passenger kilometre than alternative means of transport available.

127    The Commission disputes both the admissibility and the merits of the fifth plea.

 Admissibility of the fifth plea

128    The Commission submits that the failure to indicate, in the application, the provision in relation to which it is alleged to have made a manifest error of assessment renders the plea inadmissible, in so far as it does not meet the requirements of clarity and precision set out in the case-law referred to in paragraph 57 above. In particular, the Commission claims that the applicant did not indicate whether the Commission was accused of having made a manifest error of assessment with regard to Article 10 of the Taxonomy Regulation or Article 19 of that regulation.

129    The applicant disputes the Commission’s arguments.

130    In that regard, it should be noted that the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Rules of Procedure do not require the applicant to cite the articles on which it relies (judgment of 6 May 2009, Outokumpu and Luvata v Commission, T‑122/04, EU:T:2009:141, paragraph 53). It is sufficient that the facts, the pleas in law and the form of order sought by the applicant be set out in the application. Conversely, it is not sufficient to set out a provision of the Treaty or of EU law in order for a plea to be admissible. Under Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure, an application must contain, inter alia, a summary of the pleas in law relied on. Furthermore, that summary must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the General Court to rule on the action, where necessary without further supporting information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice, it is necessary, for a plea in law to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on by the plea be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself, so that the Court does not rule ultra petita or fail to rule on a plea relevant to the outcome of the dispute. Any plea which is not adequately articulated in the application initiating the proceedings must be held to be inadmissible (see judgment of 12 February 2020, Kampete v Council, T‑164/18, not published, EU:T:2020:54, paragraph 112 and the case-law cited).

131    In the present case, it is common ground that the applicant did not expressly indicate in the application the provision in respect of which it alleged that the Commission had made a manifest error of assessment.

132    However, it should be noted that it is sufficiently clear from the application that the applicant disputes the merits of the reasons set out in the Commission working document relating to the exclusion of the activity of manufacturing aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation from the activities for which technical screening criteria were adopted under Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation.

133    In addition, it should be noted that the Commission submitted in its defence that the arguments put forward by the applicant in support of the fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 19(1)(d), (f), (h) and (j) and (4) of the Taxonomy Regulation, were intended to demonstrate the existence of manifest errors of assessment in the application of those provisions.

134    It should also be noted that, in its response to the fifth plea (paragraphs 142 to 146 and 153 of the defence), the Commission clearly stated that it intended to contest the allegation that it had made a manifest error of assessment in the application of Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation.

135    It follows that, despite a certain lack of precision in the application, the Commission understood that, while the fourth plea in law alleged, in essence, manifest errors of assessment in the application of Article 19(1)(d), (f), (h) and (j) and (4) of the Taxonomy Regulation, the fifth plea in law alleged, in essence, a manifest error of assessment in the application of Article 10(2) of that regulation.

136    Consequently, the Commission’s plea of inadmissibility alleging a lack of clarity and precision in the fifth plea must be rejected.

 Merits of the fifth plea

137    The applicant submits that the exclusion of the manufacture of business aeroplanes from transitional activities could not, under Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation, be based solely on the criterion of CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre. It thus claims that the Commission should have taken into account, inter alia, the various uses of business aeroplanes, the leading role of business aviation in innovation, in particular through the use of a high rate of SAF, enabling the decarbonisation of the entire aviation sector, the low level of CO2 emissions from European business aviation compared to the aviation sector as a whole, and the benefits offered by business aviation in terms of connectivity compared to scheduled airlines. The fact that the Commission itself acknowledges that further work would be necessary to demonstrate how the manufacturing of latest generation business aeroplanes could contribute to the Taxonomy objectives confirms, according to the applicant, that it did not take into account all the relevant factors when it excluded the activity of manufacturing aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation from the activities for which technical screening criteria were provided in respect of the transitional activities referred to in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation.

138    The Commission maintains that it took into account the CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre of business aviation, which are significantly higher than those of other modes of transport that may, in certain cases, constitute an alternative to business aviation. It submits that the factors mentioned by the applicant in support of the present plea are irrelevant to the question of whether the activity of manufacturing aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation falls within the scope of the transitional activities referred to in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation, that is to say, activities that contribute substantially to climate change mitigation.

139    In that regard, it should be noted that, where an EU institution enjoys broad discretion, in particular when carrying out complex assessments, the judicial review which the EU judicature must carry out of the merits of a decision taken in the exercise of that discretion must not lead it to substitute its own assessment for that of the institution in question, but must seek to ascertain that that decision is not based on materially incorrect facts and that it is not vitiated by a manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 May 2023, ECB v Crédit lyonnais, C‑389/21 P, EU:C:2023:368, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited).

140    Moreover, in the context of a delegated power under Article 290 TFEU, the Commission enjoys, in the exercise of the powers conferred on it, broad discretion where it is called on, inter alia, to undertake complex assessments and evaluations (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 May 2017, Dyson v Commission, C‑44/16 P, EU:C:2017:357, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).

141    In that regard, it is settled case-law that the EU judicature must, inter alia, establish not only whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent but also whether that evidence contains all the relevant information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situation and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it (see judgment of 4 May 2023, ECB v Crédit lyonnais, C‑389/21 P, EU:C:2023:368, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited).

142    Where an institution enjoys broad discretion, observance of procedural guarantees is of fundamental importance, including the obligation for that institution to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the situation in question (see judgment of 4 May 2023, ECB v Crédit lyonnais, C‑389/21 P, EU:C:2023:368, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited).

143    In the present case, it should be borne in mind that, as stated in paragraph 117 above, the Commission considered that the activity of manufacturing aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation for the establishment of technical screening criteria, given the CO2 footprint per passenger kilometre of the latest generation aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation compared to that of alternative means of transport available.

144    Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation provides as follows:

‘… an economic activity for which there is no technologically and economically feasible low-carbon alternative shall qualify as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation where it supports the transition to a climate-neutral economy consistent with a pathway to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, including by phasing out greenhouse gas emissions, in particular emissions from solid fossil fuels, and where that activity:

(a)      has greenhouse gas emission levels that correspond to the best performance in the sector or industry;

(b)      does not hamper the development and deployment of low-carbon alternatives; …

(c)      does not lead to a lock-in of carbon-intensive assets, considering the economic lifetime of those assets.

For the purpose of this paragraph and the establishment of technical screening criteria pursuant to Article 19, the Commission shall assess the potential contribution and feasibility of all relevant existing technologies.’

145    It should be noted that, in its defence, the Commission states that, at the stage of drawing up the technical screening criteria for the manufacture of aircraft used for the transport of passengers and goods, it selected the CO2 footprint per passenger kilometre as a relevant criterion for assessing whether an economic activity contributed substantially to climate change mitigation, as required by Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation.

146    However, it should be noted that, as is apparent from the Commission working document and the explanatory memorandum to Delegated Regulation 2023/2485, the statement of reasons for the contested provision concerns, as regards the activity of manufacturing aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation, compliance, first, with the condition laid down by the first part of the sentence in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation, which provides that transitional activities may include activities for which there are no technologically and economically feasible low-carbon alternatives and, second, with the condition laid down in Article 10(2)(a) of the regulation, which states that such activities must have ‘greenhouse gas emission levels that correspond to the best performance in the sector or industry’.

147    It is therefore necessary to ascertain whether the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in applying the two conditions referred to in paragraph 146 above.

148    In the first place, as regards the assertion in the Commission working document that, in essence, ‘available transport alternatives’ constitute alternatives to the latest generation of business aeroplanes, it should be noted that, in its defence, the Commission stated that it had based that assessment on the report by the Transport & Environment (T & E) association entitled ‘Private jets: can the super-rich supercharge zero-emission aviation?’ (‘the T & E report’), from which it was apparent that there were alternatives with significantly lower CO2 emissions per passenger for certain trips of less than 500 kilometres, accounting for 50% of all private flights within the European Union. The alternatives comprised mainly trains and commercial aeroplanes, which would add a maximum of three hours to the journey time compared to a journey by business aeroplane, as well as buses and private cars. The Commission thus notes that, according to the T & E report, there is a direct commercial flight alternative for 72% of private flights. Similarly, the Commission emphasises that high-speed rail links exist on 70 to 80% of the 10 most popular private jet routes in the European Union.

149    In that regard, first of all, it should be noted that it is apparent from the first part of the sentence in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation that transitional activities may be activities which are not themselves low-carbon or low-carbon activities which do not meet the conditions of Article 10(1) of the Taxonomy Regulation (judgment of 10 September 2025, Austria v Commission, T‑625/22, under appeal, EU:T:2025:869, paragraph 159).

150    Next, it should be noted that it is apparent from the first part of the sentence in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation that transitional activities are, in addition, economic activities for which there are no technologically and economically feasible low-carbon alternatives.

151    It is important to point out, in that regard, that the mere fact that one economic activity emits less CO2 than another economic activity does not necessarily mean that it is a low-carbon activity.

152    Thus, the fact – assuming it to be established – that scheduled commercial aeroplanes emit significantly less CO2 per passenger than the latest generation of business aeroplanes does not, in itself, lead to the conclusion that the transport of passengers by scheduled commercial aeroplanes is a low-carbon activity.

153    On the contrary, it is apparent from recital 11 of the contested regulation that aviation as a whole ‘has an important potential to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions’, which means that it is not, as things currently stand, a low-carbon activity, as the Commission itself acknowledged at the hearing in response to a question put by the Court. It follows that aeroplanes produced for scheduled commercial aviation cannot be regarded as a ‘low-carbon alternative’ to the latest generation business aeroplanes, within the meaning of the first part of the sentence in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation.

154    Furthermore, contrary to what the Commission maintains, it should be noted that the question of whether, for a given economic activity, there is a technologically and economically feasible low-carbon alternative requires taking into account the nature and characteristics of the economic activity in question.

155    In the present case, as the applicant correctly argues, while it is apparent from the T & E report that rail links exist for certain routes of less than 500 kilometres which correspond to a significant proportion of the routes operated by business aeroplanes within the European Union, it does not follow that the train necessarily constitutes an alternative to the latest generation of business aeroplanes.

156    First, it should be noted that it is common ground between the parties that there are not rail links corresponding to every route that may be used by business aeroplanes between two locations within the territory of the European Union or between the territory of the European Union and third countries, particularly as regards the island parts of EU territory, as the Commission acknowledged at the hearing in response to a question put by the Court. The Commission itself also stated in recital 11 of Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 that ‘aviation plays a crucial role in fostering cohesion, connectivity, and access to the internal market for all [EU] regions’.

157    Second, it should also be noted that, as the applicant claimed without being contradicted by the Commission, business aeroplanes offer their users significant flexibility in terms of flight routes and schedules, as well as, generally speaking, greater speed than rail transport. Furthermore, unlike rail transport, the latest generation of business aeroplanes make it possible to reach the island regions of the European Union.

158    In those circumstances, it cannot be held that trains constitute a ‘low-carbon alternative’, within the meaning of the first part of the sentence in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation, to latest generation business aeroplanes.

159    Those considerations also apply to buses and private cars, which, even if they are ‘low-carbon’, lack, respectively, the flexibility and speed of latest generation of business aeroplanes.

160    Therefore, it must be concluded that the Commission could not use the existence of technologically and economically feasible alternatives as a basis for excluding the activity of manufacturing aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation from the activities for which technical screening criteria were provided in respect of the transitional activities referred to in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation.

161    In the second place, as regards the assertion in the Commission working document that, in essence, the latest generation of business aeroplanes have a significantly higher CO2 footprint per passenger kilometre than alternative means of transport, it should be noted that the Commission stated in its defence that the CO2 footprint per passenger kilometre was a well-established criterion for assessing the impacts of aviation on climate change. The Commission emphasises in that regard that the ICAO carbon emissions calculator, which is the United Nations’ official tool for quantifying the CO2 footprint of air transport, uses the method based on the passenger load factor and the passenger-to-cargo factor to determine the proportion of total fuel used that can be attributed to the passengers carried. Similarly, the Commission notes that Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport (ReFuelEU Aviation) (OJ L, 2023/2405), which introduces voluntary environmental labelling for flights, requires a method based on the expected carbon footprint per passenger and a flight’s expected CO2 efficiency per kilometre.

162    Furthermore, the Commission disputes the applicant’s claim that the global contribution of the business aviation sector to CO2 emissions is minimal. According to the Commission, it is important to put the relatively small size of the population that benefits from the use of business aeroplanes (namely 256 000 individuals, or 0.003% of the global adult population) into context in relation to business aviation’s significant contribution to global CO2 emissions (namely 1.7% to 1.8% of CO2 emissions from commercial aviation). The Commission stresses that business aviation is the most energy-intensive form of air transport, contributing at least 15.6 million tonnes of CO2 in direct emissions, or approximately 3.6 tonnes of CO2 per flight. Moreover, gas emissions from business aeroplane flights have increased by 46% between 2019 and 2023 and are likely to increase further as a result of projected significant growth in the sector in the coming years.

163    The Commission also disputes the applicant’s argument regarding the ability of its aircraft to use SAF. It submits in that regard that, even if aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation are more advanced than aircraft produced for scheduled commercial aviation in the use of SAF, it would not be justified to include the manufacture of aircraft in the transitional activities referred to in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation, even where they are capable of operating using a 100% blend of SAF. That is because aircraft manufacturers would not have any influence over how they are operated in practice, that aspect being performed by operators that are separate economic entities. Consequently, aircraft manufacturers would have no influence over the excessive risk of high CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre, which could be linked to whether or not the aircraft operator uses SAF.

164    In that regard, first, it should be recalled that the transitional activities referred to in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation may be activities that are not themselves low-carbon (see paragraph 149 above). Thus, it should be pointed out that it is apparent from Article 19(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation that only power generation activities that use solid fossil fuels are, as a matter of principle, excluded from economic activities that can be classified as environmentally sustainable. It follows that the fact that business aviation is not a low-carbon activity is not, in itself, sufficient to exclude it from the transitional activities for which technical screening criteria must be laid down.

165    Second, it should be noted that the activity of manufacturing aircraft is described in Section 3.21 as an economic activity of ‘manufacture, repair, maintenance, overhaul, retrofitting, design, repurposing and upgrade of aircraft and aircraft parts and equipment’.

166    However, the CO2 footprint per passenger kilometre is calculated by taking into account the number of passengers carried and the number of kilometres flown per flight. It follows that that criterion relates to the operation of aircraft, which is referred to in Section 6.19 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2139, entitled ‘Passenger and freight air transport’ (‘Section 6.19’), and not to their manufacture.

167    Furthermore, as regards the allegedly decisive role played by the criterion of the CO2 footprint per passenger kilometre in the Commission’s assessment of the transitional nature of economic activities in the aviation sector, it should be noted that it follows from point (e) of Section 6.19 that passenger air transport may be regarded as a transitional activity where it is carried out using an aircraft operated with a minimum share of SAF corresponding to 5% in 2022, with the percentage of such fuels increasing by two percentage points annually thereafter. It should also be noted that, unlike the technical screening criteria laid down in points (b) to (d) of Section 6.19, the technical screening criterion laid down in point (e) of that section does not refer to compliance with the technical screening criterion laid down in point (b) of Section 3.21. It therefore follows from point (e) of Section 6.19 that the activity of air transport of passengers may be considered transitional even where it is carried out using an aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation, provided that that aircraft is operated with a specified percentage of SAF, and therefore irrespective of its CO2 footprint per passenger kilometre.

168    Third, it should be noted that Article 10(2)(a) of the Taxonomy Regulation refers to ‘greenhouse gas emission levels that correspond to the best performance in the sector or industry’, so that the Commission was required to take into account, under that provision, the CO2 emissions of aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation in relation to the best performance in the passenger air transport sector, and not the rail or road sectors.

169    It must therefore be concluded that the Commission could not use the CO2 footprint per passenger kilometre of such aircraft as a basis for excluding the activity of manufacturing aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation from the activities for which technical screening criteria were provided in respect of the transitional activities referred to in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation.

170    In the third place, it should be noted that Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation provides that, for the purpose not only of establishing the technical screening criteria, but also for the purposes of that paragraph, the Commission is to assess the potential contribution and feasibility of all relevant existing technologies.

171    In the present case, the Commission maintains that it did not take into account the ability of business aeroplanes to operate with an allegedly high proportion of SAF, on the grounds that business aeroplane manufacturers have no influence over the use of SAF by business aeroplane operators. It did however state in the defence that, during the next review of the technical screening criteria, it would assess the need to establish technical screening criteria for business aeroplanes using SAF, in the light of developments in the practice of refuelling with SAF by business aeroplane operators.

172    However, it should be noted that it is apparent from point (c) of Section 3.21 that, from 1 January 2028 to 31 December 2032, the manufacture of aircraft meeting the technical screening criteria set out in point (b) of Section 3.21 and certified to operate on a 100% blend of SAF will be regarded as a transitional activity.

173    It follows that the Commission’s decision not to take into account the ability of business aeroplanes to operate with a significant proportion of SAF, even though it did take that ability into account for other aircraft with a take-off mass of more than 5.7 tonnes, appears manifestly arbitrary.

174    In the fourth place, it should be noted that it is clear from the Commission working document that the Commission itself considers that further work would be necessary to demonstrate whether, and under what conditions, the manufacturing of the latest generation of business aeroplanes could contribute to the Taxonomy objectives.

175    The argument put forward by the Commission in that regard, according to which that passage of the working document merely illustrates the step-by-step approach it adopted in establishing the technical screening criteria, rather confirms that, at the time the contested regulation was adopted, the Commission had not analysed all the relevant factors for assessing whether the activity of manufacturing aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation fell within the transitional activities referred to in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation.

176    In view of the considerations set out in paragraphs 148 to 175 above, it must be held that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment, within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 141 above, by excluding the activity of manufacturing aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation from the activities for which technical screening criteria were provided in respect of the transitional activities referred to in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation.

177    It follows that the fifth plea in law is well founded.

178    It is necessary to determine whether the illegality found is capable of leading to the annulment of the contested provision, as sought by the applicant.

179    In that regard, it should be noted that the applicant seeks the annulment of the contested provision, namely point 2 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2023/2485, in so far as it inserts a Section 3.21 into Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2139.

180    According to settled case-law, partial annulment of an act of the European Union is possible only if the elements which it is sought to have annulled can be severed from the remainder of the measure. That requirement of severability is not satisfied where the partial annulment of a measure would have the effect of altering its substance (see judgment of 10 May 2023, Ryanair v Commission (SAS II; COVID-19), T‑238/21, not published, EU:T:2023:247, paragraph 84 and the case-law cited).

181    In the present case, it should be noted that point (b) of the first paragraph of the table in Section 3.21, which excludes the manufacture of ‘aircraft … produced for private or commercial business aviation’, appears in the subdivision entitled ‘Technical screening criteria’, the purpose of which is to list the technical criteria for each type of aircraft the manufacture, repair, maintenance, overhaul, retrofitting, design, repurposing or upgrading of which falls within the scope of the Taxonomy.

182    However, all the technical criteria to be met by aircraft produced for private or commercial business aviation are set out in point (b) of Section 3.21. Point (a) of Section 3.21 merely refers to the aircraft with zero direct CO2 emissions and point (c) of Section 3.21 concerns, from 1 January 2028 to 31 December 2032, the aircraft certified to operate on a 100% blend of SAF and refers directly to point (b) of Section 3.21 for the technical criteria. The annulment of point (b) of Section 3.21 would therefore alter the substance of Section 3.21 as a whole, since it would have the effect of removing the technical criteria that certain types of aircraft must meet in order for the activities relating to them to qualify as transitional activities as referred to in Article 10(2) of the Taxonomy Regulation. It follows that point (b) of Section 3.21 is not severable from the rest of that section.

183    In addition, it should be noted that as well as adding a Section 3.21, point 2 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2023/2485 also inserted into Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2139, Section 3.18, entitled ‘Manufacture of automotive and mobility components’, Section 3.19, entitled ‘Manufacture of rail rolling stock constituents’, and Section 3.20, entitled ‘Manufacture, installation, and servicing of high, medium and low voltage electrical equipment for electrical transmission and distribution that result in or enable a substantial contribution to climate change mitigation’, which establish technical screening criteria for those activities on the basis of Article 10(3) and Article 11(3) of the Taxonomy Regulation.

184    It must be noted that, in so far as the sections referred to in paragraph 183 above differ both in their purpose and in the criteria they establish, Section 3.21 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2139 is severable from Sections 3.18 to 3.20 of that regulation.

185    Similarly, although points (b) and (c) of the first paragraph of the table in Section 6.18 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2139, which is entitled ‘Leasing of aircraft’, and points (b) and (c) of the first paragraph of Section 6.19 of Annex I to that regulation, which is entitled ‘Passenger and freight air transport’, those two sections being inserted into Annex I to that regulation by point 22 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2023/2485, refer to the technical screening criteria set out in points (b) and (c) of Section 3.21, the fact remains that those sections have a different purpose, in that they are intended to establish technical screening criteria for economic activities that differ from that referred to in Section 3.21. It follows that Section 3.21 is severable from Sections 6.18 and 6.19 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2139, as the Commission confirmed at the hearing in response to a question put by the Court.

186    It follows that, in the present case, the Court is justified in annulling in its entirety Section 3.21, inserted into Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2021/2139 by point 2 of Annex I to Delegated Regulation 2023/2485.

187    In view of all the foregoing considerations, the present action must be upheld, without it being necessary to rule on the third, fourth or sixth pleas, and the contested provision must be annulled.

 Costs

188    Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the forms of order sought by the applicant, EBAA and Compagnie Daher.

189    Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. The Parliament and the Council must therefore bear their own costs.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

hereby:

1.      Annuls Section 3.21, entitled ‘Manufacturing of aircraft’, inserted by point 2 of Annex I to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2485 of 27 June 2023 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 establishing additional technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which certain economic activities qualify as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation and for determining whether those activities cause no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives into Annex I to Commission Delegated Regulation 2021/2139 of 4 June 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing the technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which an economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation and for determining whether that economic activity causes no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives;

2.      Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dassault Aviation, European Business Aviation Association (EBAA) and Compagnie Daher;

3.      Declares that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are to bear their own costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 24 June 2026.

[Signatures]

*      Language of the case: French.