# C_2015089EN.01001301.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/13

---

Appeal brought on 22 January 2015 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2014 in Case T-481/11 Spain v Commission

(Case C-26/15 P)

(2015/C 089/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the present appeal is well founded and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014 in Case T-481/11 Spain v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the present appeal is well founded and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014 in Case T-481/11 Spain v Commission;

Spain

Commission

| — | annul the fifth indent of point D of section VI of Part 2 of Annex I to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (1) of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the fifth indent of point D of section VI of Part 2 of Annex I to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (1) of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors;

1

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Error of law as regards the scope of the obligation to state reasons. The reasoning on which the General Court relies does not correspond with the necessary clarity and lack of ambiguity that the statement of reasons for a regulation must satisfy in order to meet the requirements of Article 296 TFEU. In fact, the General Court filled the gaps in the statement of reasons for the contested regulation and substituted its own reasoning for the statement of reasons of the contested measure.

Error of law as regards the scope of the obligation to state reasons

Error of law as regards the principle of equal treatment. The General Court’s reasoning on this issue is not based on appropriate criteria for making the comparison. The General Court based its reasoning on an allegedly well-known fact, which is not supported by fact or science, namely the distinction between fruits with thick rind and those with thin rind and the inclusion of citrus fruit in the first category.

Error of law as regards the principle of equal treatment.

Error of law as regards judicial review of the principle of proportionality. The review by the General Court as to the proportionality of a restriction on the trade in goods imposed by an institution must be carried out having regard to the Commission’s broad margin of discretion. However, the General Court did not carry out its judicial review in accordance with the Tetra Laval (2) case-law. First, it did not review properly the relevance and appropriateness of the elements on which the adopted decision is based as regards the grounds justifying the restriction. Second, it did not examine correctly the conclusions drawn from the data, so that the restriction goes beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued.

Error of law as regards judicial review of the principle of proportionality.

2

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1.

1

(2)  Judgment of 15 February 2005 in Commission v Tetra Laval (C-12/03 P, EU:C:2005:87), paragraph 39.

2

Commission

Tetra Laval

---