Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-429/18 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, September 07, 2018

• Resolution Date: September 07, 2018
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-429/18

Action brought on 13 July 2018 - BRF and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos v Commission

(Case T-429/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: BRF SA (Itajaí, Brazil) and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos SA (Itajaí) (represented by: D. Arts and G. van Thuyne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700¹ ;

in the alternative, annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700, insofar as it removes the establishments of BRF SA and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos SA identified in the Annex to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 from the lists identified in the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700; and

order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation violates Article 296, second paragraph, TFEU by not stating the reasons on which the Implementing Regulation is based.

Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting the Implementing Regulation the Commission violated the applicants’ rights of defense as laid down in Article 41, second paragraph, of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in denying the applicants’ right to be heard.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes Articles 12(2) and 12(4)(c) of Regulation 854/2004² by assessing the compliance of individual establishments and the Commission commits a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes the principle of non-discrimination by treating the applicants in a different way from other Brazilian exporters of poultry products in a comparable situation.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation violates the principle of proportionality by exceeding the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to protect public health.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes Article 291(3), second paragraph of the TFEU and Articles 3(3), 10(4) and 11 of Regulation EU 182/2011³ by infringing essential procedural requirements laid down therein.

____________

[1] Commission Implementing...