—

annul the contested decision of the defendant of 3 April 2019 — C(2019) 2359 — (‘the contested decision’) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) in particular pursuant to Article 8(5)(2) thereof, in so far as in Article 1(1) of the decision, in conjunction with tables 1 and 2 of Annex I, average specific emissions of CO2 were entered in column D and CO2 savings and eco-innovation were entered in column I; and

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12(1)(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 (2) in conjunction with Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158 (3)

Within the context of the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant infringed Article 12(1)(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 in conjunction with Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158, since in the context of the verification of CO2 savings it diverged from the authorised procedure in so far as it applied an inaccurate Willans’ factor.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12(1)(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 in conjunction with Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158 in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011

Within the context of the second plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant infringed Article 12(1)(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 in conjunction with Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158 in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, since in the context of the verification procedure adopted by it for the ad-hoc review it disregarded the essential specific preconditions.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011

Within the context of the third plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant infringed Article 12(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, in so far as it ordered the exclusion of eco-innovation with respect to the previous year (2017), although the regulations expressly permits a decision on exclusion only with respect to the subsequent year.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to be heard

Within the context of the fourth plea in law, it is claimed that the applicant’s right to be heard in accordance with the requirements of the general legal principle of observance of the rights of the defence and those of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights was infringed. The defendant authorised an exchange of legal positions, but thereby adopted the contested decision.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons

Within the context of the fifth plea in law, it is claimed that the decision is not duly justified in accordance with the requirements of Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In the contested decision, the defendant merely vaguely referred to discrepancies in the testing methodology, but failed to take a position on the decisive question whether and to what extent the testing methodology required a specific preconditioning and whether the defendant approved such a testing methodology in Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158.