Dryade VZW and Others v. European Commission

Dryade VZW, a Belgian environmental NGO, together with Stichting ter bevordering van de Fossielvrij-beweging (Fossielfrij NL) from the Netherlands and Protect Our Winters Austria – Verein für Klimabildung und nachhaltigen Wintertourismus, filed an action before the General Court of the European Union against the European Commission. The applicants challenged the Commission’s decision of 17 June 2024 rejecting their request for internal review under Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation. The request sought review of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2485 of 27 June 2023, which amended Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 by establishing additional technical screening criteria (TSC) under the Taxonomy Regulation for determining whether certain economic activities, particularly in the aviation and shipping sectors, substantially contribute to climate change mitigation or adaptation and do not significantly harm other environmental objectives. The applicants seek annulment of the Commission’s decision and an order for costs, advancing five pleas in law. First, they argue that the Commission committed errors of law regarding its competence to adopt the TSC, including misinterpretations of “conclusive scientific evidence” under Article 19(1) of the Taxonomy Regulation, misapplication of the precautionary principle, unlawful balancing of mandatory criteria, presumptions about the compatibility of existing EU legislation, and acceptance of lower standards through later amendments. Second, they allege that the Commission erred in law by finding that the “replacement ratio” in the aviation TSC satisfied Article 19(1)(k), despite its complexity and lack of verifiability. Third, they claim manifest errors of assessment in determining substantial contribution to climate mitigation, classification of aircraft activities as transitional, treatment of global fleet growth, sustainable aviation fuel thresholds, and failure to consider modal shifts to rail and non-CO₂ effects. Fourth, they contend that the Commission lacked competence to adopt TSC for shipping and erred in refusing to review that part of the Delegated Act. Fifth, they allege manifest error in concluding that there was conclusive scientific evidence that the energy efficiency design index TSC makes a substantial contribution to climate mitigation, even under the Commission’s own evidentiary standard.