# C_2013325EN.01001501.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/15

---

Appeal brought on 12 August 2013 by Confederazione Cooperative Italiane, Cooperativas Agro-alimentarias, Fédération française de la coopération fruitière, légumière et horticole (Felcoop) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30.05.2013 in Case T-454/10: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) v European Commission

(Case C-455/13 P)

2013/C 325/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Confederazione Cooperative Italiane, Cooperativas Agro-alimentarias, Fédération française de la coopération fruitière, légumière et horticole (Felcoop) (represented by: M. Merola, M.C. Santacroce, avvocati)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon), Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA), European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

| — | declare the action of the F&V industrial processors inadmissible, and therefore grant the forms of order sought by the Appellants at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action of the F&V industrial processors inadmissible, and therefore grant the forms of order sought by the Appellants at first instance;

| — | alternatively, should the Court decide that the actions for annulment are admissible (quod non), revoke the judgment under appeal for serious and manifest errors in law, as well as for insufficient and contradictory legal reasoning, as explained in the appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for the examination of the merits of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, should the Court decide that the actions for annulment are admissible (quod non), revoke the judgment under appeal for serious and manifest errors in law, as well as for insufficient and contradictory legal reasoning, as explained in the appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for the examination of the merits of the case;

quod non

| — | alternatively, should the Court decide to confirm (quod non) the General Court’s assessment of the substance of the case, revoke the part of the judgment concerning the effects of the annulment of Article of Article. 60(7) of Regulation No. 543/2011 (1) because it is based on a contradictory reasoning, which also conflicts with the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation, given the duration and functioning of operational programmes; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, should the Court decide to confirm (quod non) the General Court’s assessment of the substance of the case, revoke the part of the judgment concerning the effects of the annulment of Article of Article. 60(7) of Regulation No. 543/2011 (1) because it is based on a contradictory reasoning, which also conflicts with the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation, given the duration and functioning of operational programmes;

quod non

1

| — | order the applicants in first instance to bear the costs of both instances of the proceeding or reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal if the case is referred back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicants in first instance to bear the costs of both instances of the proceeding or reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal if the case is referred back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court:

| — | incorrectly assessed the admissibility of the action in case T-454/l0 insofar as it refers to Annex VIII to Regulation No. 1580/2007 (2), in particular by considering that Annex VIII formed a whole with Article 52(2)a, second subparagraph of the above-mentioned Regulation and not realizing that the latter provision has brought no change to the content of Annex VIII, which has always been admitting to EU funding actions and investments on certain processing activities; |
| --- | --- |

—

incorrectly assessed the admissibility of the action in case T-454/l0 insofar as it refers to Annex VIII to Regulation No. 1580/2007 (2), in particular by considering that Annex VIII formed a whole with Article 52(2)a, second subparagraph of the above-mentioned Regulation and not realizing that the latter provision has brought no change to the content of Annex VIII, which has always been admitting to EU funding actions and investments on certain processing activities;

2

| — | incorrectly assessed the first instance applicants’ standing to bring the actions for annulment under Article 263(4) and (6) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

incorrectly assessed the first instance applicants’ standing to bring the actions for annulment under Article 263(4) and (6) TFEU;

| — | erroneously ruled that the contested provisions were adopted in breach of the Single CMO Regulation, by wrongly assuming that this Regulation excluded from the scope of European funding all activities carried out by producer organisations other than the production of fresh products (either for consumption or intended for processing); |
| --- | --- |

—

erroneously ruled that the contested provisions were adopted in breach of the Single CMO Regulation, by wrongly assuming that this Regulation excluded from the scope of European funding all activities carried out by producer organisations other than the production of fresh products (either for consumption or intended for processing);

| — | incorrectly applied the principle of non-discrimination, by confusing it with the principle of undistorted competition between equal market players and forgetting that the agricultural sector is subject to its own rules within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy; |
| --- | --- |

—

incorrectly applied the principle of non-discrimination, by confusing it with the principle of undistorted competition between equal market players and forgetting that the agricultural sector is subject to its own rules within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy;

| — | as far as the effects of the annulment are concerned, misapplied Article 264(2) TFEU by drawing a distinction between Article 52(2)a — second subparagraph — of former Regulation No. 1580/2007 and Article 50(3) of Regulation No. 543/2011, on the one hand, and Article 60(7) of Regulation No. 543/2011 on the other, and by delivering a judgment that is impossible to execute with reference to Article 60(7) of Regulation No. 543/2011. |
| --- | --- |

—

as far as the effects of the annulment are concerned, misapplied Article 264(2) TFEU by drawing a distinction between Article 52(2)a — second subparagraph — of former Regulation No. 1580/2007 and Article 50(3) of Regulation No. 543/2011, on the one hand, and Article 60(7) of Regulation No. 543/2011 on the other, and by delivering a judgment that is impossible to execute with reference to Article 60(7) of Regulation No. 543/2011.

---

(1)  543/2011/EU: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors

1

OJ L 157, p. 1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector

2

OJ L 350, p. 1

---