CJEU Case C-565/19 P / Judgment

Armando Carvalho and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Policy area
Environment
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Sixth Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
25/03/2021
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2021:252
  • CJEU Case C-565/19 P / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Appeal – Action for annulment and for damages – Environment – 2030 climate and energy package – Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Lack of individual concern.

     

    Outcome of the case: 

    On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby:

    1. Dismisses the appeal;
    2. Orders Mr Armando Carvalho and 36 other appellants whose names are set out in the annex to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    33) In that regard, the appellants emphasise that both the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the case-law of the Court of Justice clearly state that the fundamental rights concerned in the present case confer individual rights on each appellant. In particular, the rights concerned are the right to equality and non-discrimination, provided for in Article 21 of the Charter, the right to pursue an occupation, set out in Article 15(1) of the Charter, the right to property, within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Charter, and the rights relating to children under Article 24 of the Charter.

    ...

    59) In the fifth place, the appellants submit that the test used in the judgment in Plaumann must be amended in order to meet the legal requirement of effective judicial protection. In that regard, they observe that, in the order under appeal, the General Court held, with regard to Article 47 of the Charter, that that article ‘does not require that an individual should have an unconditional entitlement to bring an action for annulment of such a legislative act of the Union directly before the Courts of the European Union’. The General Court also held that an effective review of the legality of the acts at issue could be obtained by means of the interlocutory procedure provided for in Article 277 TFEU or a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU.

    ...

    77) In that regard, it should be borne in mind, as the General Court did in paragraph 52 of the order under appeal, that the protection conferred by Article 47 of the Charter does not require that an individual should have an unconditional entitlement to bring an action for annulment of such a legislative act of the Union directly before the Courts of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 October 2013, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, C‑583/11 P, EU:C:2013:625, paragraph 105).