Global Legal Action Network and CAN-Europe v Commission

On February 26, 2024, Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and Climate Action Network Europe (CAN-Europe) brought a case in the General Court against the European Commission for its refusal to internally review Implementing Decision 2023/1319 on Member States’ annual greenhouse gas emission allocations. The General Court dismissed the case on September 2, 2026.

The case concerned the Effort Sharing framework of the European Union (EU): sectors outside the EU Emissions Trading System for which Member States receive annual emissions allocations. Decision 2023/1319 replaced the relevant annex to the earlier 2020 implementing decision and set updated annual allocations, expressed in metric tons of CO2 equivalent, for 2023–2025. Under Article 4(3) of Regulation 2018/842, the Commission’s task was to translate legislatively fixed targets into annual Member State allocations using prescribed linear trajectories and national inventory data.

On August 23, 2023, GLAN and CAN-Europe requested internal review of Decision 2023/1319 under Article 10(1) of the Aarhus Regulation. They argued that the allocation decision was unlawful because the underlying EU climate targets and the 2020 impact assessment supporting them were inadequate. The NGOs contended that the EU target of a 55% net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, and the linked Effort Sharing target of a 40% reduction compared with 2005 levels, were insufficient and inadequately assessed. They relied, among other grounds, on the Paris Agreement, Article 191 TFEU, the precautionary and prevention principles, and Charter rights. The applicants also argued that the Commission should have carried out fresh assessments before setting the annual allocations, and that allocations based on an allegedly inadequate 2030 target were themselves inadequate.

In December 2023, however, the Commission refused the NGOs’ internal-review request. As a result, the current case was filed in the General Court, seeking annulment of that refusal.

Five Judges of the General Court held that the NGOs’ challenge was directed at the EU’s legislative 2030 climate targets, rather than at a defect specific to the Commission’s implementing decision. Under Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation, internal review is confined to non-legislative administrative acts. It therefore cannot be used to require the Commission, when exercising an implementing power, to revisit or depart from choices made by the EU legislature. Reviewing the sequence of events, the Court reaffirmed that an NGO cannot use Article 10 Aarhus internal review of a Commission implementing act to obtain a reassessment of the ambition, validity, or compatibility with environmental law of the underlying legislative targets that the Commission is legally obliged to implement under Article 291 TFEU.