# C_2015311EN.01001501.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/15

---

Appeal brought on 19 May 2015 by Robert Aubineau and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2015 in Cases T-195/11, T-458/11, T-448/12 and T-41/13, Cahier and Others v Council and Commission

(Case C-227/15 P)

(2015/C 311/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Robert Aubineau and Others (represented by Ch.-E. Gudin, avocat)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council, Commission, France

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment which refuses to acknowledge the prohibition on producers-distillers themselves distilling the wine they have produced in excess of the normal quantity, on the ground that they may apply for a licence, by becoming distillers beforehand. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment which refuses to acknowledge the prohibition on producers-distillers themselves distilling the wine they have produced in excess of the normal quantity, on the ground that they may apply for a licence, by becoming distillers beforehand.

| — | set aside the judgment which refuses to acknowledge the discriminatory character of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 (1) which does not grant the same rights to spirits producers. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment which refuses to acknowledge the discriminatory character of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 (1) which does not grant the same rights to spirits producers.

1

| — | set aside the judgment which refuses to acknowledge the wrongful conduct and liability of the institutions that have adopted rules which, when applied within a common organisation of the market, as in the present case, are incompatible with the principle of non-discrimination that has been enshrined as a general principle of EU law in the case-law of the Court of Justice and in Article 40 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment which refuses to acknowledge the wrongful conduct and liability of the institutions that have adopted rules which, when applied within a common organisation of the market, as in the present case, are incompatible with the principle of non-discrimination that has been enshrined as a general principle of EU law in the case-law of the Court of Justice and in Article 40 TFEU.

| — | set aside the judgment which refuses to acknowledge the harm suffered by the appellants as a result of a regulation that is open to two interpretations, a regulation which has led national courts to severely sanction the appellants. The regulation being open to two interpretations is the direct consequence of a text for which its author is liable, namely, in the present case, the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment which refuses to acknowledge the harm suffered by the appellants as a result of a regulation that is open to two interpretations, a regulation which has led national courts to severely sanction the appellants. The regulation being open to two interpretations is the direct consequence of a text for which its author is liable, namely, in the present case, the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on four pleas in law.

First, the appellants request the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court which refuses to acknowledge the discriminatory character of Regulation No 1623/2000 that does not grant the same rights to spirits producers.

Secondly, the appellants consider that the General Court erred in law by refusing to acknowledge the wrongful conduct and liability of the institutions that have adopted and interpreted rules which, when applied within a common organisation of the market, as in the present case, are incompatible with the principle of non-discrimination that has been enshrined as a general principle of EU law in the case-law of the Court of Justice and in Article 40 TFEU.

Thirdly, the appellants complain that the General Court failed to acknowledge the harm they have suffered. Regulation No 1623/2000 being open to two interpretations has led the national courts to severely sanction the appellants and, accordingly, that illegality is the very cause of the harm suffered.

Lastly, the appellants claim that the General Court misconstrued the meaning and scope of Article 65 of Regulation No 1623/2000 which lays down specific formalities for producers who themselves possess distillation facilities and who intend to carry out the compulsory distillation of the wine they have produced in excess of the normal quantity.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms (OJ 2000 L 194, p. 45).

1

---