# C_2015398EN.01006301.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/63 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-555/15)

(2015/C 398/77)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4808 of 15 July 2015 on the 2014 amendment of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee insofar as that decision orders the suspension of the application of the progressive rate of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee. |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea(s) in law.

| 1. | Misuse of discretion, manifest error of assessment and breach of the principle of proportionality
—
First, the applicant argues that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and thereby overstepped the bounds of its discretion and breached the principle of proportionality. | — | First, the applicant argues that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and thereby overstepped the bounds of its discretion and breached the principle of proportionality. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | First, the applicant argues that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and thereby overstepped the bounds of its discretion and breached the principle of proportionality. | | |

| 2. | Breach of the prohibition on discrimination and of the requirement of equal treatment
—
Secondly, the applicant argues that the Commission’s conduct as regards the suspension can be said to be inconsistent and as a result gives rise to a breach of the prohibition on discrimination and the requirement of equal treatment. | — | Secondly, the applicant argues that the Commission’s conduct as regards the suspension can be said to be inconsistent and as a result gives rise to a breach of the prohibition on discrimination and the requirement of equal treatment. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Secondly, the applicant argues that the Commission’s conduct as regards the suspension can be said to be inconsistent and as a result gives rise to a breach of the prohibition on discrimination and the requirement of equal treatment. | | |

| 3. | Breach of the obligation to state reasons and of the principle of sound administration and rights of the defence
—
Thirdly, the applicant takes the view, inter alia, that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission failed to observe the requirement to state reasons. | — | Thirdly, the applicant takes the view, inter alia, that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission failed to observe the requirement to state reasons. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Thirdly, the applicant takes the view, inter alia, that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission failed to observe the requirement to state reasons. | | |

| 4. | [Breach of] the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to effective legal remedies
—
Finally, the applicant takes the view that the suspension ordered by the Commission results in the breach of guaranteed basic rights such as the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to an effective legal remedy. | — | Finally, the applicant takes the view that the suspension ordered by the Commission results in the breach of guaranteed basic rights such as the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to an effective legal remedy. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Finally, the applicant takes the view that the suspension ordered by the Commission results in the breach of guaranteed basic rights such as the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to an effective legal remedy. | | |

---