What sources does Taxxa search?

Taxxa searches a continuously updated collection of more than one million pages from tax authorities, government publications, legislation and case law across the European jurisdictions it covers. Every response cites the underlying material, so a professional can inspect the rule, its jurisdiction and whether it is current before relying on the result.

Can Taxxa work with a team’s own documents?

Yes. Research can combine the public knowledge base with a team’s own PDF, DOCX, CSV and TXT files in one workspace. That makes it possible to compare a client document with the relevant guidance, trace a conclusion to its source and prepare a draft without losing the evidence that supports it.

Who is Taxxa built for?

Accountants, auditors, tax advisors, payroll specialists, bookkeepers and advisory teams working across European jurisdictions. Shared workspaces keep research available to colleagues, and citations make review easier.

Where is customer data stored, and is it used to train models?

Customer data stays in the European Union and is never used to train language models.

Does Taxxa replace professional judgement?

No. Taxxa is a research and drafting workspace. It helps professionals reach an informed starting point faster; the professional still reviews the evidence and makes the final decision. It does not file returns, post bookkeeping entries or give legal advice.

European UnionEUR-Lex

Court annuls taxonomy review refusal over missing methane-slip limit

The Court annulled the Commission's refusal of internal review only where it held no methane-slip threshold was needed in the maritime taxonomy criteria; all aviation pleas failed.

By Taxxa AI OyPublished 30 September 2026

Accounting & Reporting Legal & Corporate

The General Court partially annulled the Commission's rejection of an environmental internal review of the EU Taxonomy's aviation and maritime screening criteriaEuropa. The action, brought by Dryade VZW, Stichting ter bevordering van de Fossielvrij-beweging (Fossielfrij NL) and Protect Our Winters Austria, challenged the decision of 16 June 2024 refusing internal review of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2485Europa, which added taxonomy criteria for manufacturing, leasing and operating aircraft and for sea and coastal freight and passenger water transport. The Court upheld the action on one point only and rejected the five pleas in all other respectsEuropa.

The successful plea concerned the methane-slip safeguard in the maritime criteria of Sections 6.10(e) and 6.11(d)Europa. From 1 January 2026, vessels unable to meet the zero direct tailpipe CO2 criterion may still qualify where they can run on zero direct emission or renewable-source fuels, attain an Energy Efficiency Design Index value at least 20 percentage points below the reference line applicable on 1 April 2022, can plug in at berth, and — for gas-fuelled ships — demonstrate state-of-the-art measures and technologies to mitigate methane slippage emissionsEuropa.

The Court accepted that the Commission need not define that state-of-the-art wordingEuropa, but held it erred in law in finding no methane-slip threshold or limit was neededEuropa. The Commission's own decision acknowledged that verifying the safeguard would run through methane-slip measurement against thresholds in Annex II to the FuelEU Maritime Regulation under guidelines still being developedEuropa. That reasoning is contradictory, the Court held: where verifying a criterion requires checking emissions thresholds, the criterion must contain them or expressly refer to the standard holding them, or it fails Article 19(1)(k) of Regulation (EU) 2020/852Europa, which requires technical screening criteria to be easy to use and set in a manner facilitating verification of complianceEuropa. A changing regulatory context cannot substitute for a fixed threshold or referenceEuropa.

The contested decision is therefore annulled solely in so far as the Commission found no methane-slip threshold or limit was necessary in Sections 6.10(e) and 6.11(d)Europa. All aviation pleas failed, including challenges to the CO2-margin bands for aircraft manufacturing, the fleet replacement ratio, the sustainable aviation fuel percentages, and the treatment of non-CO2 effectsEuropa. Each party bears its own costs.

Legal basis: Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 30 September 2026, Case T-449/24, operative part points 1 and 2, applying Article 19(1)(k) of Regulation (EU) 2020/852.

Operators and financiers relying on the maritime taxonomy criteria in Sections 6.10(e) and 6.11(d) should track the Commission response to the annulment and not treat gas-fuelled vessels methane-slip safeguard as settled until a threshold or reference is fixed.

Sources

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) 30 September 2026 — Case T-449/24