# C_2013325EN.01001601.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/16

---

Appeal brought on 09/08/2013 by T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-279/11: T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda v European Commission

(Case C-456/13 P)

2013/C 325/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, avocat, D. Slater, Solicitor)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union, French Republic

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the present appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 in Case T-279/11 (‘the Contested Judgment’) to the extent it dismisses as inadmissible the Appellants' action for annulment and rejects its related pleas of illegality; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 in Case T-279/11 (‘the Contested Judgment’) to the extent it dismisses as inadmissible the Appellants' action for annulment and rejects its related pleas of illegality;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for examination of the substance; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for examination of the substance;

| — | order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants put forward the following grounds in support of their Appeal:

| 1. | the GC committed an error of law in concluding that the Contested Regulations entailed implementing measures within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the GC committed an error of law in concluding that the Contested Regulations entailed implementing measures within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU;

| 2. | the GC committed an error of law in concluding that Regulation 393/2011 (1) was not of individual concern to the Appellants; |
| --- | --- |

2.

the GC committed an error of law in concluding that Regulation 393/2011 (1) was not of individual concern to the Appellants;

1

| 3. | the GC committed an en-or of law in rejecting the plea of illegality, as a result of errors (1) and (2) above. |
| --- | --- |

3.

the GC committed an en-or of law in rejecting the plea of illegality, as a result of errors (1) and (2) above.

As a result, the Appellants request your Court (i) to set aside the Contested Judgment to the extent that it declares inadmissible the Application for Annulment and rejects the plea of illegality; and (ii) refer the case back to the GC.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 393/2011 of 19 April 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences

1

OJ L 104, p. 39

---