Recently, Poland has filed two new complaints with the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding EU climate measures tied to the Fit for 55 package. The focus is on the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), the system for trading CO2 emission rights, and the market stability reserves that influence the price and availability of allowances.
The core issue centers on how to vote and, more importantly, the legal basis for these measures. Poland argues that both CBAM and the extended ETS framework have fiscal implications for member states and affect how each country structures its energy mix. Because these matters fall under the exclusive competence of member states, Poland contends that unanimity is required for adoption, not the qualified majority voting that has been used by the European Commission and the EU Council.
Previously, the government challenged ECJ acts from the European Parliament and the Council related to prohibiting the registration of internal combustion engine vehicles after 2035, the move to tighten CO2 reduction targets from 40% to 55%, the ongoing reduction in free CO2 emission permits, and the involvement of member states in forest management under the LULUCF regulation. In those cases, the Parliament and Council also decided to vote by qualified majority, even though the issues are tied to the exclusive competencies of member states, which would require unanimous approval from all member states for any change.
Price implications have become a focal point. In April, the European Parliament approved these measures with broad support, including opposition parties, while the EU Council followed a week later. The Parliament supported extending the ETS to additional sectors such as transport and construction and increasing the cost burden of permits for aviation and maritime transport emissions. This expansion, along with a higher number of free CO2 allowances, is expected to push up the price of emissions allowances on European exchanges. The package also includes the Social Climate Fund, designed to assist households with the costs of climate policy, and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), intended to tax EU imports of energy-intensive goods from countries without comparable climate levies.
Social Climate Fund
Ministerial objections arose at the EU Council, with the climate ministry noting that Poland’s energy sector is heavily coal-based—roughly 70% of supply. The ministry estimates that CO2 allowance price increases could account for about 40% of electricity costs and as much as 55% of district heating bills. The inclusion of transport and construction in the ETS would raise household operating costs, while reducing free allowances for air and maritime transport would lift airline ticket prices and increase shipping costs. Proponents argue that the Social Climate Fund, projected to exceed 100 billion euros annually, would address these challenges; however, the country’s needs through 2030 are estimated near 190 billion euros.
EU example and global stance
Supporters in the left-liberal bloc of European institutions maintain that advancing these policies would position the EU as a global leader in climate action. They argue that other nations will follow the EU’s lead and adopt tighter climate measures, accelerating reductions by major emitters. Critics, however, warn that the EU riskily pushes ahead without solid proof that the pace of technological progress will match the higher costs, especially as other large economies prepare their own climate policies at a slower pace, such as China after 2030.
Observers will watch how the ECJ responds to Poland’s petitions, particularly in light of the recent move by Frans Timmermans, who has stepped back from frontline EU politics to pursue Dutch political engagement amid early elections. The outcome could shape the balance between EU-level policy ambitions and the sovereignty of member states in setting energy and climate strategies.
Note: The discussion reflects ongoing parliamentary and regulatory developments and the perspectives of various stakeholders as the EU weighs ambitious climate reforms against national energy security concerns.