# C_2013233EN.01001301.xml

| 10.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/13 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 19 July 2013 — CSF v European Commission

(Case T-337/13)

2013/C 233/22

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CSF Srl (Grumolo delle Abbadesse, Italy) (represented by: R. Santoro, S. Armellini and R. Bugaro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision 2013/173/EU published on 10 April 2013 and notified to the applicant on 16 April 2013; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action contests Commission Decision 2013/173/EU of 8 April 2013‘on a measure taken by Denmark according to Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council prohibiting a type of multi-purpose earthmoving machinery’. That decision found the ban imposed by the Danish authorities to be justified (OJ 2013 L 101, p. 29).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 5, 6(1), 7 and 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC and points 1.1.2 and 3.4.4 of Annex I thereto.
—
It is submitted in that regard that the contested decision is not compatible with the above provisions since it did not take into account the fact that, in reality, the FOPS protective structures for the applicant’s Multione S630 machines are mandatory in all cases in which use of the machines exposes the operator to the risk of falling objects or material. | — | It is submitted in that regard that the contested decision is not compatible with the above provisions since it did not take into account the fact that, in reality, the FOPS protective structures for the applicant’s Multione S630 machines are mandatory in all cases in which use of the machines exposes the operator to the risk of falling objects or material. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | It is submitted in that regard that the contested decision is not compatible with the above provisions since it did not take into account the fact that, in reality, the FOPS protective structures for the applicant’s Multione S630 machines are mandatory in all cases in which use of the machines exposes the operator to the risk of falling objects or material. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment.
—
It is submitted in that regard that the Danish measure which the contested decision finds to be justified imposed restrictive measures solely on the movement of multi-purpose Multione S630 machines, even though many other multi-purpose machines similar in type to the Multione S630, and used in the same way, are on the market in Denmark without being obliged to have FOPS. | — | It is submitted in that regard that the Danish measure which the contested decision finds to be justified imposed restrictive measures solely on the movement of multi-purpose Multione S630 machines, even though many other multi-purpose machines similar in type to the Multione S630, and used in the same way, are on the market in Denmark without being obliged to have FOPS. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | It is submitted in that regard that the Danish measure which the contested decision finds to be justified imposed restrictive measures solely on the movement of multi-purpose Multione S630 machines, even though many other multi-purpose machines similar in type to the Multione S630, and used in the same way, are on the market in Denmark without being obliged to have FOPS. | | |

---