# C_2007140EN.01003801.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/38

---

Action brought on 19 April 2007 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-135/07)

(2007/C 140/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul, as provided for in Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the decision in the letter of 7 February 2007, prot. No. 3585, of the Director General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, as provided for in Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the decision in the letter of 7 February 2007, prot. No. 3585, of the Director General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture of the Commission;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Government of the Italian Republic has brought an action before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to obtain the annulment, as provided for in Article 230 of the EC Treaty, of the decision in the letter of 7 February 2007, prot. 3585, of the Director General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture of the Commission, by which the request of the Italian authorities to adopt exceptional measures to support the Italian market in poultrymeat within the meaning of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (1) is rejected, so far as concerns the chicks destroyed in areas affected by avian influenza and subject to veterinary measures restricting circulation in the period from December 1999 to September 2003 inclusive.

1

In support of its action, the Italian Government pleads:

| — | infringement of the principle of non-discrimination between Community producers laid down in the second paragraph of Article 34(2) EC, in so far as the defendant granted exceptional market support measures only with regard to the egg-laying sector, refusing similar measures relating to poultrymeat by the contested measure; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principle of non-discrimination between Community producers laid down in the second paragraph of Article 34(2) EC, in so far as the defendant granted exceptional market support measures only with regard to the egg-laying sector, refusing similar measures relating to poultrymeat by the contested measure;

| — | misuse of powers and manifest error of assessment on the part of the Commission;
  It is noted in that respect that, for the purpose of attaining the objective pursued by Regulation No 2777/75, the Commission ought to have adopted exceptional measures to support the Italian market in poultrymeat, by far the most affected avicultural sector in Italy. By contrast, despite the repeated request put forward by the applicant, the Commission refused to do so, merely granting support measures in favour of the egg-laying sector, the least affected in Italy by restrictive measures and, essentially, the only one affected in the Netherlands. In so doing, the Commission clearly intended to allocate the majority of the available resources to Netherlands producers, reducing to a minimum the indemnity granted to Italian producers; |
| --- | --- |

—

misuse of powers and manifest error of assessment on the part of the Commission;

It is noted in that respect that, for the purpose of attaining the objective pursued by Regulation No 2777/75, the Commission ought to have adopted exceptional measures to support the Italian market in poultrymeat, by far the most affected avicultural sector in Italy. By contrast, despite the repeated request put forward by the applicant, the Commission refused to do so, merely granting support measures in favour of the egg-laying sector, the least affected in Italy by restrictive measures and, essentially, the only one affected in the Netherlands. In so doing, the Commission clearly intended to allocate the majority of the available resources to Netherlands producers, reducing to a minimum the indemnity granted to Italian producers;

| — | misinterpretation and infringement of Article 14 of Regulation No 2777/75 and manifest error of assessment.
  In the applicant's view, contrary to the view of the defendant, Article 14 of the regulation at issue does not apply only when the imbalances on the market are caused by the fact that it is impossible for producers which are in an area under surveillance and protection to have access to the market outside that area. In fact, the Commission could adopt exceptional support measures to restabilise the market affected by restrictions on free circulation which result from the application of measures intended to prevent the spread of animal disease, irrespective of whether those restrictions relate to products entering or those exiting a particular area; |
| --- | --- |

—

misinterpretation and infringement of Article 14 of Regulation No 2777/75 and manifest error of assessment.

In the applicant's view, contrary to the view of the defendant, Article 14 of the regulation at issue does not apply only when the imbalances on the market are caused by the fact that it is impossible for producers which are in an area under surveillance and protection to have access to the market outside that area. In fact, the Commission could adopt exceptional support measures to restabilise the market affected by restrictions on free circulation which result from the application of measures intended to prevent the spread of animal disease, irrespective of whether those restrictions relate to products entering or those exiting a particular area;

| — | lastly, also the breach of the principles of sound administration, impartiality, fairness and transparency. |
| --- | --- |

—

lastly, also the breach of the principles of sound administration, impartiality, fairness and transparency.

---

(1)  OJ L 282 of 1.11.1975, p. 77.

1

---