ORDER OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
1 October 2026 ( * )
[para_3]( Appeal – Intervention – Environment – Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 – Establishment of a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s net-zero technology manufacturing ecosystem – Contribution of oil and gas producers to the Union-wide target for available carbon dioxide (CO2) injection capacity by 2030 – Decision (EU) 2025/1479 – Pro rata contribution by entities holding an authorisation – Action for annulment – Entity subject to a contribution obligation – No interest in the result of the case )
[para_4]In Case C‑438/26 P(I),
[para_5]APPEAL under the second paragraph of Article 57 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 4 May 2026,
[para_6]BlueNord Energy Denmark A/S, established in Copenhagen (Denmark), represented by H. Saugmandsgaard Øe, advokat,
[para_7]appellant,
[para_8]the other party to the proceedings being:
[para_9]European Commission, represented by A. Azéma, E. Sanfrutos Cano and G. Wils, acting as Agents,
[para_10]defendant at first instance,
[para_11]THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
[para_12]after hearing the Advocate General, M. Szpunar,
[para_13]makes the following
Order
[para_15]1 By its appeal, BlueNord Energy Denmark A/S (‘BlueNord Energy’) asks the Court of Justice to set aside the order of the President of the Tenth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union of 16 April 2026, TotalEnergies EP Danmark and Others v Commission (T‑724/25, ‘the order under appeal’, EU:T:2026:291), by which the General Court dismissed its application to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicants at first instance in Case T‑724/25, namely TotalEnergies EP Danmark A/S, TotalEnergies EP Denmark ASW, TotalEnergies EP Italia SpA and TotalEnergies EP Nederland BV (‘the applicants’).
Background to the dispute
[para_17]2 Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s net-zero technology manufacturing ecosystem and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (OJ L, 2024/1735) is aimed at stimulating the industrial deployment of ‘net-zero’ technologies, by contributing to the attainment of the European Union’s climate objectives.
[para_18]3 Chapter III of Regulation 2024/1735, entitled ‘[CO2] injection capacity’, contains provisions designed to support an EU market for CO2 storage services. To that end, Article 20(1) of that regulation sets an annual Union-level injection capacity of at least 50 million tonnes of CO2, to be achieved by 2030. In accordance with Article 23(1) of that regulation, that target is to be achieved through the individual contributions of entities which produce natural gas and crude oil in the territory of the European Union between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2023 and which hold an authorisation issued by Member States, within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (OJ 1994 L 164, p. 3), enabling them to exercise the exclusive right to prospect or explore for or produce hydrocarbons in a geographical area.
[para_19]4 In accordance with Article 23(12)(a) of that regulation, the European Commission is empowered to adopt a delegated act concerning the rules on the identification of oil and gas producers that are subject to a contribution, including the threshold below which such entities are exempt from their contribution.
[para_20]5 It was on the basis of that provision that the Commission adopted Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1477 of 21 May 2025 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 of the European Parliament and of the Council by specifying the rules on the identification of authorised oil and gas producers who are required to contribute to the objective of reaching the Union target for available [CO2] injection capacity by 2030, on the calculation of their respective contributions, and on their reporting obligations (OJ L, 2025/1477).
[para_21]6 In accordance with Article 23(3) of Regulation 2024/1735, the Commission adopted Decision (EU) 2025/1479 of 22 May 2025 specifying the pro rata contributions to the Union [CO2] injection capacity objective by 2030 from entities holding an authorisation as defined in Article 1, point 3, of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L, 2025/1479; ‘the decision at issue’).
The procedure before the General Court and the order under appeal
[para_23]7 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 17 October 2025, the applicants brought an action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision at issue.
[para_24]8 By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 11 February 2026, BlueNord Energy sought leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicants.
[para_25]9 In support of its application to intervene, BlueNord Energy stated that it was one of the addressees of the decision at issue and that it had a direct and existing interest in the result of Case T‑724/25, in that the operative part of the decision which closes the proceedings would be capable of altering its legal position in the same way as that of the applicants. In so far as the applicants seek the annulment of the decision at issue in its entirety, inter alia on the ground that it has no legal basis, the annulment of that decision by the General Court would have an ex tunc and erga omnes effect, with the result that it would also concern BlueNord Energy.
[para_26]10 By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 4 March 2026, the applicants did not raise any objection to that application to intervene. Moreover, the applicants requested that, in accordance with Article 144(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, certain confidential information in the file should not be communicated to BlueNord Energy in the event that it be granted leave to intervene.
[para_27]11 By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 5 March 2026, the Commission contended that BlueNord Energy’s application to intervene should be dismissed and requested that BlueNord Energy be ordered to bear its own costs.
[para_28]12 By the order under appeal, the General Court dismissed that application to intervene on the ground that BlueNord Energy had not demonstrated that it had a direct and existing interest in the result of Case T‑724/25.
[para_29]13 First, the General Court held, in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the order under appeal, that Annex I to the decision at issue constituted, in essence, a bundle of individual decisions, by which the Commission set the amount of the individual contributions of the obligated entities. The possible annulment of that decision following the action brought by the applicants therefore produces effects only vis-à-vis the addressees of the decision which brought that action. By contrast, the decision at issue remains binding vis-à-vis the obligated entities that have not brought such an action.
[para_30]14 Second, the General Court rejected BlueNord Energy’s argument that the decision at issue would have no legal basis if the action were upheld on the basis of the plea of illegality in respect of Articles 20 and 23 of Regulation 2024/1735 and Articles 3 and 4 of Delegated Regulation 2025/1477. In that regard, the General Court held, in paragraphs 16 to 19 of the order under appeal, that the provisions of the decision at issue relating to BlueNord Energy would not be affected by a judgment of the General Court annulling that decision, even if the annulment were based on a ground that there was no legal basis for that decision. A finding of illegality made indirectly by the EU Courts, in the context of a plea of illegality, entails the illegality of the individual contested decision, without however calling into question the legality of other acts which have been adopted on the same basis and which were not challenged within the prescribed time limits.
[para_31]15 Lastly, the President of the Tenth Chamber of the General Court rejected, in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the order under appeal, BlueNord Energy’s argument based, in essence, on the case-law arising from the order of 16 December 2009, Tisza Erőmű v Commission (T‑468/08, EU:T:2009:518). The decision that was at issue in the case which gave rise to that order adopted, according to the General Court, a comprehensive approach in relation to all the power purchase agreements, despite the fact that the beneficiaries of the aid had been identified individually in the operative part of that decision.
Forms of order sought by the parties to the appeal
16 By its appeal, BlueNord Energy claims that the Court should:
[para_34]– set aside the order under appeal;
[para_35]– grant it leave to intervene in Case T‑724/25 in support of the form of order sought by TotalEnergies EP Danmark A/S, TotalEnergies EP Denmark ASW, TotalEnergies EP Italia SpA and TotalEnergies EP Nederland BV, and
[para_36]– order the Commission to pay the costs.
17 The Commission contends that the Court should:
[para_38]– dismiss the appeal, and
[para_39]– order BlueNord Energy to pay the costs.
The appeal
Arguments
[para_42]18 In support of its appeal, BlueNord Energy raises, in essence, a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of Regulation 2024/1735.
[para_43]19 First, BlueNord Energy submits that the President of the Tenth Chamber of the General Court erred in law by holding, in paragraph 14 of the order under appeal, that the interest of the applicant to intervene is determined on the basis of the legal classification of the decision at issue. BlueNord Energy submits, on the contrary, that the interest of the applicant to intervene must be assessed in the light of the specific circumstances of each case. The President of the Tenth Chamber of the General Court should not have relied on the findings that, on the one hand, Annex I to the decision at issue constitutes a bundle of individual decisions and, on the other hand, the possible annulment of the decision at issue would produce effects only vis-à-vis the applicants.
[para_44]20 BlueNord Energy submits, inter alia, that the reasoning of the President of the Tenth Chamber of the General Court, set out in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the order under appeal, to the effect that the decision at issue could be treated in the same way as decisions adopted in the field of competition which impose individual fines, is incorrect. It considers that the case-law cited in paragraph 14 of the order under appeal is not transposable to the present case, as that case-law does not concern situations in which individual contributions are calculated on a pro rata basis. The General Court should have taken into account the specific regulatory framework within which the decision at issue falls.
[para_45]21 Second, BlueNord Energy submits that its legal position would be altered by the annulment of the decision at issue, for two reasons. On the one hand, it agrees with the applicants’ position that the decision at issue should be annulled on the ground that, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, Articles 20 and 23 of Regulation 2024/1735 as well as Articles 3 and 4 of Delegated Regulation 2025/1477 are inapplicable. It argues that, in that scenario, the Commission would be required to propose a revision of Regulation 2024/1735 and of Delegated Regulation 2025/1477. On the other hand, the Commission would be required to review the individual contributions of the obligated entities in order to ensure compliance with the Union-wide target for available CO2 injection capacity by 2030, in view of its obligation, under Article 266 TFEU, to comply with a judgment annulling a decision such as the decision at issue.
[para_46]22 Third, its right to intervene is a specific expression of the right of access to the courts, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Consequently, in accordance with that article, the General Court should have accepted that BlueNord Energy has a direct and existing interest in the result of the case.
[para_47]23 The Commission contends that, in its appeal, BlueNord Energy has failed to demonstrate the existence of errors of law, and argues that the appeal must therefore be dismissed. It considers, first, that the decision at issue must be understood, as regards Annex I thereto, as constituting a bundle of individual decisions, the possible annulment of which could produce effects only vis-à-vis the entities which have brought an action against that decision. Second, any amendment to Regulation 2024/1735 or to Delegated Regulation 2025/1477 remains speculative and does not establish that the applicant to intervene has a direct and existing interest.
Assessment
[para_49]24 By its single ground of appeal, BlueNord Energy complains that the President of the Tenth Chamber of the General Court erred in law when interpreting the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union by holding that BlueNord Energy has not demonstrated that it has a direct and existing interest in the result of Case T‑724/25. It also argues that, by failing to take into account the specific features of Regulation 2024/1735, the President of the Tenth Chamber of the General Court did not correctly interpret the applicable legal framework.
[para_50]25 In that regard, it should be recalled that, under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, any natural or legal person which can establish an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court, save in cases between Member States, between EU institutions or between Member States and EU institutions, may intervene in that case.
[para_51]26 According to settled case-law, the concept of an ‘interest in the result of a case’, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined in the light of the precise subject matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the form of order sought, and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law or arguments put forward as such. The words ‘result of a case’ refer to the final decision sought, as set out in the operative part of the decision which closes the proceedings. Therefore, more specifically, it is a direct and existing interest in the grant of the form of order that is sought by the party that the applicant to intervene intends to support (order of the President of the Court of 30 April 2020, Commission v HSBC Holdings and Others , C‑806/19 P, EU:C:2020:364, paragraph 7, and order of the Vice-President of the Court of 17 December 2025, České dráhy v Commission , C‑545/25 P(I), EU:C:2025:1026, paragraph 23).
[para_52]27 In that regard, it is appropriate, in particular, to ascertain whether the applicant to intervene is directly affected by the contested measure and whether that applicant’s interest in the result of the case is certain. Generally, an interest in the result of the case can be considered to be sufficiently direct only in so far as that result is capable of altering the legal position of the applicant to intervene (order of the President of the Court of 30 April 2020, Commission v HSBC Holdings and Others , C‑806/19 P, EU:C:2020:364, paragraph 8 and the case-law cited, and order of the Vice-President of the Court of 24 June 2021, ratiopharm and Others v Commission , C‑220/21 P(I), EU:C:2021:521, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
[para_53]28 In the present case, in order to ascertain whether the President of the Tenth Chamber of the General Court erred in law when assessing whether the applicant to intervene has a sufficiently direct interest in the result of the case, it must be determined whether the operative part of a subsequent annulment judgment would be such as to alter the legal situation of that applicant to intervene.
[para_54]29 In the first place, it must be noted that Article 1 of the decision at issue imposes on authorisation holders whose combined production of crude oil and natural gas in the European Union amounted to 95% of the volume of crude oil and natural gas produced in the European Union in the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2023, an obligation to contribute to the Union-wide target of 50 million tonnes of CO2 injection capacity by 2030. Annex I to that decision sets out the list of entities that are subject to that obligation and specifies their respective obligations. That obligation is thus imposed individually on each of the entities included on that list.
[para_55]30 It is true that it must be stated, first, that the decision at issue is drafted and published in the form of a single decision and, second, that Article 1 of that decision determines, in abstract terms and on the basis of objective criteria, the entities subject to that obligation. However, Annex I to that decision comprises a bundle of individual decisions establishing, in respect of each of the entities to whom they are addressed, that those entities are subject to the obligation to contribute to the Union-wide target of 50 million tonnes of CO2 injection capacity by 2030, whilst specifying their individual contribution as set out in Annex I, which is calculated in proportion to their share of crude oil and natural gas production. The decision at issue thus carries out an individualised application of the general rule laid down in Article 4 of Delegated Regulation 2025/1477 relating to the ‘calculation methodology of the individual pro-rata contribution of obligated entities’.
[para_56]31 Although BlueNord Energy is an addressee of the decision at issue, as are the applicants, such a decision can be annulled only with respect to those addressees which have successfully brought an action against that decision before the EU Courts, and it remains binding on the addressees which have not brought an action for annulment against it under Article 263 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 September 1999, Commission v AssiDomän Kraft Products and Others , C‑310/97 P, EU:C:1999:407, paragraph 39; of 15 October 2002, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission , C‑238/99 P, C‑244/99 P, C‑245/99 P, C‑247/99 P, C‑250/99 P to C‑252/99 P and C‑254/99 P, EU:C:2002:582, paragraph 100; and order of the President of the Court of 30 April 2020, Commission v HSBC Holdings and Others , C‑806/19 P, EU:C:2020:364, paragraph 16). Any annulment of a Commission decision may only occur on an individual and case-specific basis, having regard to the arguments of parties that have brought an action for annulment against it, given that the scope of the annulment which it pronounces may not go further than that sought by the applicant (order of 17 December 2025, České dráhy v Commission , C‑545/25 P(I), EU:C:2025:1026, paragraph 34).
[para_57]32 Furthermore, as regards BlueNord Energy’s argument that the case-law on competition matters is not transposable to the present case, it should be noted, first of all, that, irrespective of the field to which a decision applies, the General Court assessed whether there was a sufficiently direct interest in the light of the criterion established by the case-law cited in paragraph 26 of the present order, which is whether the ruling on the form of order sought by the party which the applicant to intervene wishes to support has a direct impact on the legal situation of that applicant to intervene (see, to that effect, orders of the President of the Court of 30 April 2020, Commission v HSBC Holdings and Others , C‑806/19 P, EU:C:2020:364, paragraphs 9 to 16; of 29 February 2024, EDPS v SRB , C‑413/23 P, EU:C:2024:199, paragraphs 9 to 13; and of 26 September 2024, Commission v Ryanair and Malta Air , C‑167/24 P, EU:C:2024:813, paragraphs 7 to 11). Such an assessment is based essentially on an examination of the legal effects of an annulment judgment; those effects depend on the legal nature of the act the annulment of which is sought.
[para_58]33 It follows that the President of the Tenth Chamber of the General Court was fully entitled, in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the order under appeal, to examine the legal classification of the decision at issue and the effect of any annulment of that decision on BlueNord Energy’s legal situation.
[para_59]34 Next, contrary to what BlueNord Energy submits, the case-law cited in paragraph 14 of the order under appeal applies not only in the field of competition but also in other fields. It is sufficient to cite, in that regard, the orders of the President of the Court of 30 June 2025, SRB v Hypo Vorarlberg Bank (C‑536/24 P, EU:C:2025:503, paragraphs 15 and 16), of 30 June 2025, SRB v Volkskreditbank (C‑537/24 P, EU:C:2025:510, paragraphs 14 and 15), of 30 June 2025, Council v Volkskreditbank (C‑585/24 P, EU:C:2025:507, paragraphs 14 and 15), made in the field of economic and monetary policy and concerning decisions of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) setting the ex ante contributions of financial institutions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF).
[para_60]35 Lastly, it follows, inter alia, from paragraphs 13 and 21 of the order under appeal that the President of the Tenth Chamber of the General Court also took into account the specific features of the regulatory framework in question.
[para_61]36 In the second place, it must be held that BlueNord Energy’s legal position would not be altered by the possible annulment of the decision at issue.
[para_62]37 In that regard, BlueNord Energy’s line of argument that the annulment of the decision at issue on the ground of lack of a legal basis would result in the revision of Regulation 2024/1735 and of Delegated Regulation 2025/1477 must be rejected. Although it is for the institution concerned to take, under Article 266 TFEU, the necessary steps to comply with an annulment judgment, such a judgment, delivered by the EU Courts, has, according to settled case-law, as soon as it becomes final, the force of res judicata with absolute effect, which applies not only to the operative part of the judgment annulling a decision, but also to the grounds which are its essential basis and are inseparable from it (see, to that effect, judgments of 26 April 1988, Asteris and Others v Commission , 97/86, 99/86, 193/86 and 215/86, EU:C:1988:199, paragraphs 27 to 30, and of 3 September 2020, Mellifera v Commission , C‑784/18 P, EU:C:2020:630, paragraph 20).
[para_63]38 In the circumstances of the present case, the possible annulment of the decision at issue by the Court would render the individual decision in question unlawful, but would not affect the legality of the acts of general application on the basis of which the decision at issue was adopted, namely Regulation 2024/1735 and Delegated Regulation 2025/1477. Depending on the grounds setting out the precise reasons for any illegality found by the court, the Commission may be required to review the regulatory framework in question and to recalculate the individual contributions. Furthermore, the illegality of the individual decision in question could have an impact on the group of obligated entities and excluded entities, or on the method for calculating the individual contributions to the operational CO2 injection capacity of entities holding authorisations. However, the possible annulment of the decision at issue cannot, as such and automatically, lead to a change in the amount of the contribution by the applicant to intervene; such a change would require the adoption of subsequent acts.
[para_64]39 Thus, any revision of Regulation 2024/1735 and of Delegated Regulation 2025/1477, which could, in turn, have consequences for the individual contribution of the applicant to intervene, cannot establish that the latter has a direct and certain interest in the result of the case.
[para_65]40 As BlueNord Energy itself states in its appeal, it would be exposed to ‘the risk of a revision of its contribution, while remaining uncertain as to its final amount under a regulatory scheme that distributes a total quota’. In that regard, it must be stated that, unlike the case which gave rise to the order of the President of the Court of 7 June 2019, Mellifera v Commission (C‑784/18 P, EU:C:2019:479, paragraphs 21 to 24), in which at issue was the status of the applicant to intervene as the holder of national authorisations to place on the market plant protection products containing glyphosate, the annulment of the decision at issue would be liable to affect only the economic situation of BlueNord Energy. However, such consequences cannot be regarded as sufficient to establish that its legal position would be altered by that annulment.
[para_66]41 In those circumstances, the President of the Tenth Chamber of the General Court was fully entitled to hold, in paragraph 22 of the order under appeal, that BlueNord Energy has not demonstrated that it has a direct and existing interest in the result of the case.
[para_67]42 That conclusion is not invalidated by BlueNord Energy’s argument that the order under appeal does not comply with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It must be borne in mind, in that regard, that recognition of the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 in a given case presupposes that the person invoking that right is relying on rights or freedoms guaranteed by EU law (order of the Vice-President of the Court of 22 March 2024, Sberbank of Russia v MeSoFa and Others , C‑690/23 P(I), EU:C:2024:272, paragraph 33).
[para_68]43 Consequently, Article 47 cannot mean that a person who is not a party to a dispute which is the subject of proceedings before a Court of the European Union is necessarily entitled to intervene in those proceedings where the outcome of that case is not, as such, capable of having consequences for that person’s rights and obligations (order of the Vice-President of the Court of 22 March 2024, Sberbank of Russia v MeSoFa and Others , C‑690/23 P(I), EU:C:2024:272, paragraph 34).
[para_69]44 In view of all the foregoing considerations, the single ground of appeal raised by BlueNord Energy in support of its appeal must be rejected and, consequently, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety.
Costs
[para_71]45 Under Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to the costs.
[para_72]46 Under Article 138(1) of those rules, which applies to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) of those rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
[para_73]47 Since the Commission has applied for costs and BlueNord Energy has been unsuccessful, BlueNord Energy must be ordered to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
On those grounds, the Vice-President of the Court hereby orders:
[para_75]1. The appeal is dismissed.
[para_76]2. BlueNord Energy Denmark A/S shall bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
[para_77]Luxembourg, 1 October 2026.
A. Calot Escobar
T. von Danwitz
Registrar
Vice-President
[para_82]* Language of the case: English.