# C_2022024EN.01004701.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/47

---

Action brought on 10 November 2021 — Sunrise Medical and Sunrise Medical Logistics v Commission

(Case T-721/21)

(2022/C 24/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sunrise Medical BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Sunrise Medical Logistics BV (Amsterdam) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and J. Beck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1367 of 6 August 2021 in its entirety from the date it came into force; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1367 of 6 August 2021 in its entirety from the date it came into force;

| — | order the Commission of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1367 of 6 August 2021 (1), the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application. Firstly, the applicants claim that the Commission misapplied the law by not taking into account the United Nations Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. Secondly, the Commission failed to pay any or sufficient regard to the Convention’s implementation in European Union law in this context, namely, as applied in Case C-198/15 Invamed Group and Others (2), applying instead, the wrong concept of disability. Instead, the contested regulation pays regard to irrelevant criteria derived from instruments made before the Council Decision of 26 November 2009 (3) and the United Nations Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application. Firstly, the applicants claim that the Commission misapplied the law by not taking into account the United Nations Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. Secondly, the Commission failed to pay any or sufficient regard to the Convention’s implementation in European Union law in this context, namely, as applied in Case C-198/15 Invamed Group and Others (2), applying instead, the wrong concept of disability. Instead, the contested regulation pays regard to irrelevant criteria derived from instruments made before the Council Decision of 26 November 2009 (3) and the United Nations Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error within the meaning of Case C-463/98 Cabletron (4). The applicants submit that irrelevant considerations were taken into account, and relied on, in determining that the product identified in the contested regulation (in column (3) of the Annex to the contested regulation) must be classified under CN Heading 8703 rather than CN Heading 8713. In addition, and in the alternative, the Commission misclassified the product, which, applying the guidance of the Court in Case C-198/15 Invamed, ought to be classified under CN Heading 8713. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error within the meaning of Case C-463/98 Cabletron (4). The applicants submit that irrelevant considerations were taken into account, and relied on, in determining that the product identified in the contested regulation (in column (3) of the Annex to the contested regulation) must be classified under CN Heading 8703 rather than CN Heading 8713. In addition, and in the alternative, the Commission misclassified the product, which, applying the guidance of the Court in Case C-198/15 Invamed, ought to be classified under CN Heading 8713.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, in particular, a procedural rule intended to ensure that that measures are formulated with due care, compliance with which may influence the content of the measure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, in particular, a procedural rule intended to ensure that that measures are formulated with due care, compliance with which may influence the content of the measure.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1367 of 6 August 2021 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2021 L 294, p. 1).

(2)  Judgment of 26 May 2016, Invamed Group Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, C-198/15, EU:C:2016:362.

(3)  Council Decision of 26 November 2009 concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2010/48/EC) (OJ 2010 L 23, p. 35).

(4)  Judgment of 10 May 2001, Cabletron Systems Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners, C-463/98, EU:C:2001:256.

---