In a regulatory pushback that should sound familiar to U.S. manufacturers, eight leading European truck-trailer builders have filed an appeal to the European Court of Justice against key provisions of Regulation (EU) 2024/1610. The regulation introduces binding CO₂ reduction targets also for trailers—even though trailers themselves do not emit any CO₂.
The plaintiff companies (Fliegl Trailer, Kögel Trailer, Krone Trailer, Langendorf, Schmitz Cargobull, Schwarzmüller, System Trailers, and Wecon) account for more than 80% of annual trailer registrations in Germany and more than 70% across Europe.
While the companies noted that they fully support the EU’s climate goals, they warn against the consequences of a regulation detached from practical realities: Instead of reducing emissions, the regulation could lead to increased traffic volumes and overall emissions.
The group of eight companies had already filed an action for annulment before the General Court of the European Union, which dismissed the case on the grounds that there was "no individual concern."
CO₂ reduction: Simulation vs. reality
Since July 1st, 2024, the Regulation mandates a 10% CO₂ reduction for semi-trailers and 7,5% for other trailers—based on simulations using the EU’s own VECTO-Trailer tool, which forms the core of the Regulation. Failure to meet the targets may result in substantial annual penalties from 2030 onward: €4,250 per vehicle and per gram of CO₂-emissions per ton-kilometer. Estimates suggest that these penalties alone could increase trailer prices by up to 40%, rendering them economically unviable for many manufacturers.
"A tool that simulates CO₂ savings while in reality more trucks are on the road contradicts the climate goals. We need actual efficiency gains across the entire system, not simulated pseudo-solutions,” states Gero Schulze Isfort, spokesperson for the group. “In its current form, the regulation jeopardizes not only climate targets but also production sites, fair competition, and more than 70,000 jobs. We therefore see no alternative but to seek legal recourse.”
The eight plaintiffs are predominantly medium-sized enterprises. Unlike large corporations, they do not have unlimited financial or technological resources to cushion regulatory burdens in the short term, the group suggested. For them, the regulation poses an acute threat to their economic viability—with direct implications for thousands of jobs in the manufacturing and supplier industries.
Technically unfounded, economically unsustainable
