# C_2018341EN.01002201.xml

| 24.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/22

---

Action brought on 13 July 2018 — BRF and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos v Commission

(Case T-429/18)

(2018/C 341/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: BRF SA (Itajaí, Brazil) and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos SA (Itajaí) (represented by: D. Arts and G. van Thuyne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 (1);

| — | in the alternative, annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700, insofar as it removes the establishments of BRF SA and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos SA identified in the Annex to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 from the lists identified in the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700, insofar as it removes the establishments of BRF SA and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos SA identified in the Annex to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 from the lists identified in the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation violates Article 296, second paragraph, TFEU by not stating the reasons on which the Implementing Regulation is based. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation violates Article 296, second paragraph, TFEU by not stating the reasons on which the Implementing Regulation is based.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting the Implementing Regulation the Commission violated the applicants’ rights of defense as laid down in Article 41, second paragraph, of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in denying the applicants’ right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting the Implementing Regulation the Commission violated the applicants’ rights of defense as laid down in Article 41, second paragraph, of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in denying the applicants’ right to be heard.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes Articles 12(2) and 12(4)(c) of Regulation 854/2004 (2) by assessing the compliance of individual establishments and the Commission commits a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes Articles 12(2) and 12(4)(c) of Regulation 854/2004 (2) by assessing the compliance of individual establishments and the Commission commits a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes the principle of non-discrimination by treating the applicants in a different way from other Brazilian exporters of poultry products in a comparable situation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes the principle of non-discrimination by treating the applicants in a different way from other Brazilian exporters of poultry products in a comparable situation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation violates the principle of proportionality by exceeding the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to protect public health. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation violates the principle of proportionality by exceeding the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to protect public health.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes Article 291(3), second paragraph of the TFEU and Articles 3(3), 10(4) and 11 of Regulation EU 182/2011 (3) by infringing essential procedural requirements laid down therein. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation infringes Article 291(3), second paragraph of the TFEU and Articles 3(3), 10(4) and 11 of Regulation EU 182/2011 (3) by infringing essential procedural requirements laid down therein.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 of 8 May 2018 amending the lists of third country establishments from which imports of specified products of animal origin are permitted, regarding certain establishments from Brazil (OJ 2018 L 118, p. 1)

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 206)

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 291)

---