# C_2014212EN.01004101.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/41 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 19 May 2014 — UNIC v Commission

(Case T-338/14)

2014/C 212/53

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini, lawyer, and M. Bottino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Uphold the action and, accordingly, annul the contested decision; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the European Commission’s decision of 19 March 2014 rejecting the request for initiation of a withdrawal procedure in respect of the preferential tariff arrangements granted to India, Pakistan and Ethiopia with regard to the raw hides and semi-manufactured leather goods referred to in Sections S-8a, S-8b and S-12a of [the GSP Sections, as set out in Annex V to] Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (OJ 2012 L 303, p. 1).

In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
—
The applicant claims, in this regard, that the contested decision does not comply with the obligation, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice, to provide a clear, precise and unequivocal statement of reasons. | — | The applicant claims, in this regard, that the contested decision does not comply with the obligation, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice, to provide a clear, precise and unequivocal statement of reasons. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims, in this regard, that the contested decision does not comply with the obligation, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice, to provide a clear, precise and unequivocal statement of reasons. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.
—
The applicant claims, in this regard, that there has been a manifest error of assessment regarding (i) whether the temporary withdrawal of preferential arrangements is a sufficient response to the raw material supply problem and (ii) the existence of preconditions for the temporary withdrawal, pursuant to Article 19(1)(d) of Regulation No 978/2012, of the general preferential arrangements granted to India, Ethiopia and Pakistan. | — | The applicant claims, in this regard, that there has been a manifest error of assessment regarding (i) whether the temporary withdrawal of preferential arrangements is a sufficient response to the raw material supply problem and (ii) the existence of preconditions for the temporary withdrawal, pursuant to Article 19(1)(d) of Regulation No 978/2012, of the general preferential arrangements granted to India, Ethiopia and Pakistan. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | The applicant claims, in this regard, that there has been a manifest error of assessment regarding (i) whether the temporary withdrawal of preferential arrangements is a sufficient response to the raw material supply problem and (ii) the existence of preconditions for the temporary withdrawal, pursuant to Article 19(1)(d) of Regulation No 978/2012, of the general preferential arrangements granted to India, Ethiopia and Pakistan. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging failure to respect the right to good administration as described in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
—
The applicant claims, in this regard, that there has been a failure to verify whether the conditions listed in Article 19(1)(d) of Regulation No 978/2012 for initiating the procedure for withdrawing generalised tariff preferences have been satisfied. | — | The applicant claims, in this regard, that there has been a failure to verify whether the conditions listed in Article 19(1)(d) of Regulation No 978/2012 for initiating the procedure for withdrawing generalised tariff preferences have been satisfied. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims, in this regard, that there has been a failure to verify whether the conditions listed in Article 19(1)(d) of Regulation No 978/2012 for initiating the procedure for withdrawing generalised tariff preferences have been satisfied. | | |

---