Action brought on 27 April 2026 – Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council

(Case T-264/26)

(C/2026/3080)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nord Stream 2 AG (Steinhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: T. Winter and S. Thürk, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Regulation (EU) 2026/261 (1);

—	in the alternative: annul the first subparagraph of Article 3(1), Article 4(1), Article 4(2), Article 4(4)(b) and Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2026/261;

—	order the Parliament and the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

The contested regulation is null and void for lack of competence.

—	The applicant submits that the contested regulation is based on incorrect legal bases, namely Article 194(2) and Article 207 TFEU. In reality, it is a sanction-like measure which should have been based on Article 215 TFEU. The choice of an incorrect legal basis renders the regulation null and void.

The contested regulation breaches the principle of proportionality.

—

In the applicant’s view, the import ban is neither appropriate nor necessary to achieve the alleged objectives of security of supply or diversification. It also results in a disproportionate burden, in particular in the context of the considerable reduction in gas imports from Russia and the measures already in place.

The contested regulation infringes the applicant’s right to property.

—	The applicant submits that the regulation effectively deprives it of the opportunity to use its pipeline commercially. That constitutes de facto expropriation without providing for any compensation.

The contested regulation infringes the applicant’s right to property.

—	The applicant claims that the contested regulation makes it impossible for it to carry out any economic activity in connection with the operation of the pipeline. The measure is disproportionate and does not take sufficient account of its economic interests.

The contested regulation breaches the principle of equality.

—	The applicant argues that it has been subject to unjustified and unequal treatment as compared with other market participants, in particular other pipeline operators, without there being any objective grounds to do so.

The contested regulation is null and void for misuse of powers.

—	Finally, the applicant submits that the EU institutions chose the ordinary legislative procedure in order to circumvent the requirements of the law on sanctions, which constitutes a misuse of powers.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2026/261 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 January 2026 on phasing out Russian natural gas imports and preparing the phase-out of Russian oil imports, improving monitoring of potential energy dependencies and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 (OJ L, 2026/261).