# C_2019148EN.01003801.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/38

---

Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by Fruits de Ponent, S.C.C.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-290/16, Fruits de Ponent v Commission

(Case C-183/19 P)

(2019/C 148/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Fruits de Ponent, S.C.C.L. (represented by: M. Roca Junyent, R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber of the General Court of 13 December 2018 in Case T-290/16, Fruits de Ponent v Commission; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber of the General Court of 13 December 2018 in Case T-290/16, Fruits de Ponent v Commission; (1)

| — | primarily, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings so permits: (i) give judgment on the action brought at first instance and grant the form of order sought by the appellant; and (ii) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in both proceedings; or |
| --- | --- |

—

primarily, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings so permits: (i) give judgment on the action brought at first instance and grant the form of order sought by the appellant; and (ii) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in both proceedings; or

| — | in the alternative, if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit it to give judgment (i) refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and (ii) order that costs be reserved. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit it to give judgment (i) refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and (ii) order that costs be reserved.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | First, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), (2) insofar as: (i) when assessing whether there was a sufficiently serious breach, it applies criteria which are irrelevant; (ii) it rules out that, when the Commission intervenes in the event of serious market disturbances in the CAP, one of its objectives must be maintaining farmers’ standard of living (Article 39(1)(b) TFEU); (iii) it rules out that the Commission must collect data distinct from that prescribed by law; and (iv) it states that the Commission does not have to collect information on the prices received by farmers. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), (2) insofar as: (i) when assessing whether there was a sufficiently serious breach, it applies criteria which are irrelevant; (ii) it rules out that, when the Commission intervenes in the event of serious market disturbances in the CAP, one of its objectives must be maintaining farmers’ standard of living (Article 39(1)(b) TFEU); (iii) it rules out that the Commission must collect data distinct from that prescribed by law; and (iv) it states that the Commission does not have to collect information on the prices received by farmers.

| 2. | Second, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal: (i) distorts the facts by assessing the evidence in a manifestly incorrect manner; (ii) infringes the principles which govern the burden of proof by finding that certain facts are established in spite of evidence to the contrary; and (iii) infringes the principle venire contra factum propium non valet by accepting the Commission’s arguments which are contrary to the responses provided by that institution to citizens under the principle of transparency. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal: (i) distorts the facts by assessing the evidence in a manifestly incorrect manner; (ii) infringes the principles which govern the burden of proof by finding that certain facts are established in spite of evidence to the contrary; and (iii) infringes the principle venire contra factum propium non valet by accepting the Commission’s arguments which are contrary to the responses provided by that institution to citizens under the principle of transparency.

| 3. | Third, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 296 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter insofar as: (i) the appellant’s arguments are ignored relating to the fact that the Commission should have collected information on achieving the maintenance of producers’ standard of living; and (ii) the appellant’s arguments relating to the fact that the Commission should have the objective of guaranteeing farmers’ standard of living are ignored and distorted, thus preventing the appellant from obtaining a judicial response to its arguments. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 296 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter insofar as: (i) the appellant’s arguments are ignored relating to the fact that the Commission should have collected information on achieving the maintenance of producers’ standard of living; and (ii) the appellant’s arguments relating to the fact that the Commission should have the objective of guaranteeing farmers’ standard of living are ignored and distorted, thus preventing the appellant from obtaining a judicial response to its arguments.

| 4. | Fourth, the appellant submits that, in the present case, Article 39 TFEU and Article 219 of Regulation 1308/2013 (3) have been infringed, insofar as, in the event of a crisis, it is exclusively the Commission, not applicants or producer associations, which has responsibility for activating the extraordinary crisis mechanism. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth, the appellant submits that, in the present case, Article 39 TFEU and Article 219 of Regulation 1308/2013 (3) have been infringed, insofar as, in the event of a crisis, it is exclusively the Commission, not applicants or producer associations, which has responsibility for activating the extraordinary crisis mechanism.

---

(1)  ECLI:EU:T:2018:934.

(2)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 1.

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

---