# C_2021297EN.01004901.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/49

---

Action brought on 10 June 2021 — Harley-Davidson Europe and Neovia Logistics Services International v Commission

(Case T-324/21)

(2021/C 297/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Harley-Davidson Europe Ltd (Oxford, United Kingdom), Neovia Logistics Services International (Vilvoorde, Belgium) (represented by: O. van Baelen and G. Lebrun, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Contested Decision (1) in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Contested Decision (1) in its entirety;

| — | order that the Commission pay its own costs and the applicants’ costs in connection with these proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Commission pay its own costs and the applicants’ costs in connection with these proceedings;

| — | draw all useful consequences from the judgment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

draw all useful consequences from the judgment; and

| — | order measures of organisation or enquiry as deemed appropriate by the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order measures of organisation or enquiry as deemed appropriate by the Court.

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 Commission has infringed essential procedural requirements. The Contested Decision is insufficiently reasoned and the Commission failed to follow properly the advisory committee procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed essential procedural requirements. The Contested Decision is insufficiently reasoned and the Commission failed to follow properly the advisory committee procedure.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has misused its revocation power under Article 34(11) of Regulation (EU) No. 952/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, because it has based the contested decision on an incorrect interpretation of Article 33 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (3) (‘UCCDA’). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has misused its revocation power under Article 34(11) of Regulation (EU) No. 952/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, because it has based the contested decision on an incorrect interpretation of Article 33 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (3) (‘UCCDA’).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that Article 33 UCCDA is invalid, because (i) if the Commission has correctly interpreted Article 33 UCCDA that provision is invalid for breach of the requirements of Article 290 TFEU and (ii) it is invalid for such breach in any event. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that Article 33 UCCDA is invalid, because (i) if the Commission has correctly interpreted Article 33 UCCDA that provision is invalid for breach of the requirements of Article 290 TFEU and (ii) it is invalid for such breach in any event.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is in breach of general principles of EU law and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is in breach of general principles of EU law and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has misused its powers in issuing the Contested Decision and has abused its power to revoke Binding Origin Information decisions, as an inevitable consequence of the pleas above and as a result of the Commission having abused its revocation power to political ends, undermining its proper purpose: to ensure correct and uniform application by Member States of origin rules. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has misused its powers in issuing the Contested Decision and has abused its power to revoke Binding Origin Information decisions, as an inevitable consequence of the pleas above and as a result of the Commission having abused its revocation power to political ends, undermining its proper purpose: to ensure correct and uniform application by Member States of origin rules.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/563 of 31 March 2021 on the validity of certain decisions relating to binding origin information (OJ 2021, L 119, p. 117).

(2)  OJ 2013, L 269, p. 1.

(3)  OJ 2015, L 343, p. 1.

---