Luossavaara Kiirunavaara AB v. European Commission

This case concerns an appeal (Case C-621/23 P) brought by Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB (the appellant), a Swedish mining company, against a judgment of the General Court of the European Union of July 26, 2023. The General Court had dismissed its action for annulment of Article 1(3) of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/355 (the “contested decision”). The European Commission was the defendant at first instance, and the Kingdom of Sweden, which supported the appeal, was an intervener. Under the EU ETS Directive, certain industrial installations may receive free allowances based on harmonized benchmarks for their sectors or products. Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB (Swedish company) challenged the decision (EU) 2021/355 of the European Commission, which rejected Sweden’s proposal to cover a sub-installation producing iron ore pellets using the benchmark for sintered ore. The company sought annulment of this decision via the General Court and then appealed to the CJEU. Luossavaara Kiirunavaara AB advanced that iron ore pellets are replaceable by sintered ore, so they should qualify for the same benchmark. The Commission should ensure free allocations to promote the most emission-efficient techniques, which would include pellets. Moreover, the appellant argued that the restrictive interpretation violated principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, and the duty to state reasons, as well as potentially EU environmental obligations. On 22 May 2025, the CJUE rejected the appeal, upholding the General Court’s decision. Indeed, it confirmed that in the context of the development of benchmarks, the Commission must pursue a general objective of incentivising the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the extent feasible, that obligation not having the character of an obligation of result. Furthermore, the Court found that iron ore pellets cannot be considered equivalent to sintered ore for the benchmark, because the production processes and uses differ sufficiently. Therefore, the Commission provided sufficient reasoning for its decision, and the refusal does not violate the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 of the TFEU.