# C_2013367EN.01003502.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/35 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 14 October 2013 — France v Commission

(Case T-549/13)

2013/C 367/63

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. De Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission’s Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat; |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Commission’s reasoning was not clear and unequivocal and, consequently, it did not allow the interested parties to know the reasons for the contested regulation. The applicant claims that:
—
first, obligation to state reasons for the contested regulation was even more fundamental because the Commission had, for the adoption of the contested regulation, a wide discretion and, —
secondly, the Commission was bound to develop its arguments in a clear manner where, by fixing export refunds on poultrymeat at a zero rate, the contested regulation went significantly further than the previous regulations in that sector. | — | first, obligation to state reasons for the contested regulation was even more fundamental because the Commission had, for the adoption of the contested regulation, a wide discretion and, | — | secondly, the Commission was bound to develop its arguments in a clear manner where, by fixing export refunds on poultrymeat at a zero rate, the contested regulation went significantly further than the previous regulations in that sector. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | first, obligation to state reasons for the contested regulation was even more fundamental because the Commission had, for the adoption of the contested regulation, a wide discretion and, | | | | |
| — | secondly, the Commission was bound to develop its arguments in a clear manner where, by fixing export refunds on poultrymeat at a zero rate, the contested regulation went significantly further than the previous regulations in that sector. | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, divided into two parts, alleging infringement of Article 164(3) of the Single CMO Regulation( 1 ) by considering that the market situation and the national and international situation at the time the contested regulation was adopted justified fixing export refunds on poultrymeat at a zero rate. The applicant claims that:
—
the Commission carried out a manifestly erroneous assessment of the market situation; —
the Commission manifestly infringed the limits of its discretion by taking into account, for the adoption of the contested regulation, the recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the ongoing negotiations in the context of the WTO, which are matters not included among those exhaustively listed in Article 164(3) of the Single CMO Regulation. | — | the Commission carried out a manifestly erroneous assessment of the market situation; | — | the Commission manifestly infringed the limits of its discretion by taking into account, for the adoption of the contested regulation, the recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the ongoing negotiations in the context of the WTO, which are matters not included among those exhaustively listed in Article 164(3) of the Single CMO Regulation. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the Commission carried out a manifestly erroneous assessment of the market situation; | | | | |
| — | the Commission manifestly infringed the limits of its discretion by taking into account, for the adoption of the contested regulation, the recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the ongoing negotiations in the context of the WTO, which are matters not included among those exhaustively listed in Article 164(3) of the Single CMO Regulation. | | | | |

---

( 1 )  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

---