Dyson Ltd and Others v European Commission.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2024:11
• Date: 11 January 2024
• Docket Number: C-122/22
• Celex Number: 62022CJ0122
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

11 January 2024 ( *1 )

(Appeal – Energy – Directive 2010/30/EU – Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products – Delegated regulation of the European Commission supplementing that directive – Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners – Annulment – Actions for damages – Non-contractual liability of the European Union – Requirement of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Manifest and grave disregard for the limits of discretion – Relevant factors in the case of the absence of any discretion)

In Case C‑122/22 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 18 February 2022,

Dyson Ltd, established in Malmesbury (United Kingdom),

Dyson Technology Ltd, established in Malmesbury,

Dyson Operations Pte Ltd, established in Singapore (Singapore),

Dyson Manufacturing Sdn Bhd, established in Senai (Malaysia),

Dyson Spain SLU, established in Madrid (Spain),

Dyson Austria GmbH, established in Vienna (Austria),

Dyson sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw (Poland),

Dyson Ireland Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland),

Dyson GmbH, established in Cologne (Germany),

Dyson SAS, established in Paris (France),

Dyson Srl, established in Milan (Italy),

Dyson Sweden AB, established in Stockholm (Sweden),

Dyson Denmark ApS, established in Copenhagen (Denmark),

Dyson Finland Oy, established in Helsinki (Finland),

Dyson BV, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands),

represented by E. Batchelor, M. Healy and T. Selwyn Sharpe, avocats and Solicitors,

appellants,

the other party to the proceedings being:

European Commission, represented by J.-F. Brakeland, B. De Meester and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of C. Lycourgos, President of the Chamber, O. Spineanu-Matei (Rapporteur), J.-C. Bonichot, S. Rodin and L.S. Rossi, Judges,

Advocate General: T. Ćapeta,

Registrar: R. Stefanova-Kamisheva, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 20 April 2023,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 July 2023,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By their appeal, Dyson Ltd and the 14 other appellants ask the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 December 2021, Dyson and Others v Commission (T‑127/19, EU:T:2021:870; ‘the judgment under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed their action for compensation for the damage they claim to have suffered as a result of the adoption by the European Commission of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1; ‘the regulation at issue’).

Legal context

2 Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (OJ 2010 L 153, p. 1) was repealed by Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU (OJ 2017 L 198, p. 1). Recitals 5 and 8 of that directive stated: ‘(5) The provision of accurate, relevant and comparable information on the specific energy consumption of energy-related products should influence the end-user’s choice in favour of those products which consume or indirectly result in consuming less energy and other essential resources during use, thus prompting manufacturers to take steps to reduce the consumption of energy and other essential resources of the products which they manufacture. It should also, indirectly, encourage the efficient use of these products in order to contribute to the EU’s 20% energy efficiency target. In the absence of this information, the operation of market forces alone will fail to promote the rational use of energy and other essential resources for these products. … (8) Information plays a key role in the operation of market forces and it is therefore necessary to introduce a uniform label for all products of the same type, to provide potential purchasers with supplementary standardised information on those products’ costs in terms of energy and the consumption of other essential resources and to take measures to ensure that potential end-users who do not see the product displayed, and thus have no opportunity to see the label, are also supplied with this information. In order to be efficient and successful, the label should be easily recognisable to end-users, simple and concise. To this end the existing layout of the label should be retained as the basis to inform end-users about the energy efficiency of products. Energy consumption of and other information concerning the products should be measured in accordance with harmonised standards and methods.’

3 Article 1(1) and (2) of that directive stated: ‘1. This Directive establishes a framework for the harmonisation of national measures on end-user information, particularly by means of labelling and standard product information, on the consumption of energy and where relevant of other essential resources during use, and supplementary information concerning energy-related products, thereby allowing end-users to choose more efficient products. 2. This Directive shall apply to energy-related products which have a significant direct or indirect impact on the consumption of energy and, where relevant, on other essential resources during use.’

4 Under Article 5(a) and (b) of that directive, the Member States are to ensure that ‘suppliers placing on the market or putting into service products covered by a delegated act supply a label and a fiche in accordance with this Directive and the delegated act’ and that those suppliers ‘produce technical documentation which is sufficient to enable the accuracy of the information contained in the label and the fiche to be assessed’.

5 Article 10 of Directive 2010/30, headed ‘Delegated acts’, provided: ‘1. The Commission shall lay down details relating to the label and the fiche by means of delegated acts in accordance with Articles 11 to 13, relating to each type of product in accordance with this Article. Where a product meets the criteria listed in paragraph 2, it shall be covered by a delegated act in accordance with paragraph 4. Provisions in delegated acts regarding information provided on the label and in the fiche on the consumption of energy and other essential resources during use shall enable end-users to make better informed purchasing decisions and shall enable market surveillance authorities to verify whether products comply with the information provided. … 4. The delegated acts shall specify in particular: … (b) the measurement standards and methods to be used in obtaining the information referred to in Article 1(1); … (i) the level of accuracy in the declarations on the label and fiches; (j) the date for the evaluation and possible revision of the delegated act, taking into account the speed of technological progress.’

6 Article 11 of that directive, entitled ‘Exercise of the delegation’, provided in paragraph 1: ‘The powers to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 10 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years beginning on 19 June 2010. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated powers not later than six months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of powers shall be automatically extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council [of the European Union] revokes it in accordance with Article 12.’

Background to the dispute

7 Pursuant to the delegation conferred on it by Directive 2010/30, the Commission adopted the regulation at issue, which implemented that directive with regard to the energy labelling of vacuum cleaners. To that end, it adopted a testing method for measuring, inter alia, the energy performance and dust pick-up of vacuum cleaners, which was conducted with an empty dust receptacle at the beginning of the suction tests on different types of surfaces (‘the empty-receptacle test’).

8 The first appellant is a manufacturer of a particular type of vacuum cleaner, known as ‘cyclonic’ vacuum cleaners, whose energy performance is said to be better than other kinds of vacuum cleaner. That performance was allegedly underestimated by the testing method used by the Commission since it did not make it possible to take into account a decrease in the performance of other types of vacuum cleaner as their dust receptacle fills up. By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 7 October 2013, the first appellant sought to have the regulation in question annulled, claiming, inter alia, that the Commission lacked competence to lay down such a testing method. It submitted in that regard that that method did not take account of vacuum cleaner performance ‘during use’, as required by Article 10(1) of Directive 2010/30. That action was dismissed by judgment of 11 November 2015, Dyson v Commission (T‑544/13, EU:T:2015:836).

9 On appeal by the first appellant, that judgment was set aside by the judgment of 11 May 2017, Dyson v Commission (C‑44/16 P, EU:C:2017:357; ‘the appeal judgment’). The case was referred back to the General Court for judgment on...