# C_2016016EN.01002401.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/24

---

Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Bionorica SE against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14 Bionorica SE v European Commission

(Case C-596/15 P)

(2016/C 016/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Bionorica SE (represented by: M. Weidner, T. Guttau, N. Hußmann, Rechtsanwälte)

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:

| — | conduct an oral hearing; |
| --- | --- |

—

conduct an oral hearing;

| — | set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the form of order which it seeks, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal:

| — | Procedural errors: the General Court partially took incorrect facts as a basis and thus reached a wrong decision, which puts a burden on the appellant. The General Court wrongly assumed that the appellant is a food producer which, moreover, was concerned only by deferred health claims within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. (1) Furthermore, the General Court partially provided an inadequate statement of grounds for its decision. The General Court did not address in detail the content of the Commission’s letter allegedly putting an end to the failure to act and thus reached a wrong decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

Procedural errors: the General Court partially took incorrect facts as a basis and thus reached a wrong decision, which puts a burden on the appellant. The General Court wrongly assumed that the appellant is a food producer which, moreover, was concerned only by deferred health claims within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. (1) Furthermore, the General Court partially provided an inadequate statement of grounds for its decision. The General Court did not address in detail the content of the Commission’s letter allegedly putting an end to the failure to act and thus reached a wrong decision.

1

| — | Infringement of EU law: the General Court wrongly refused to recognise the conditions of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission’s failure to act was not brought to an end. In addition, the General Court incorrectly assessed Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, in particular Articles 17 and 28 thereof. Deferred and authorised health claims cannot be treated as equivalent. The legal consequences resulting from the transitional provisions are not sufficiently predictable. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of EU law: the General Court wrongly refused to recognise the conditions of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission’s failure to act was not brought to an end. In addition, the General Court incorrectly assessed Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, in particular Articles 17 and 28 thereof. Deferred and authorised health claims cannot be treated as equivalent. The legal consequences resulting from the transitional provisions are not sufficiently predictable.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.

1

---