# C_2013291EN.01000402.xml

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/4

---

Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Doux v Commission

(Case T-434/13)

2013/C 291/05

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Doux SA (Châteaulin, France) (represented by: J. Vogel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the contested regulation does not contain any statement of reasons. The applicant claims that the statement of reasons mentioned in the contested regulation is merely a standard statement of reasons which does not make it possible to follow the reasoning of the Commission, whereas the Commission should have indicated very specifically the considerations justifying moving from a refund of EUR 108,50 per tonne to EUR 0, particularly because it is breaking from its previous decision-making practice. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the contested regulation does not contain any statement of reasons. The applicant claims that the statement of reasons mentioned in the contested regulation is merely a standard statement of reasons which does not make it possible to follow the reasoning of the Commission, whereas the Commission should have indicated very specifically the considerations justifying moving from a refund of EUR 108,50 per tonne to EUR 0, particularly because it is breaking from its previous decision-making practice.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations since the Commission had assured operators that the refunds would be maintained until the entry into force of the new common agricultural policy. The applicant claims that the reduction in the refund from EUR 108,50 per tonne to EUR 0 was not foreseeable in the light of the situation in the poultry market. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations since the Commission had assured operators that the refunds would be maintained until the entry into force of the new common agricultural policy. The applicant claims that the reduction in the refund from EUR 108,50 per tonne to EUR 0 was not foreseeable in the light of the situation in the poultry market.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission took the view that economic indicators justified setting the amount of refund at EUR 0 although the increase in market price will be mostly absorbed by the rise of the Euro against the Dollar. The applicant is thus of the opinion that economic indicators do not justify refunds being abolished. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission took the view that economic indicators justified setting the amount of refund at EUR 0 although the increase in market price will be mostly absorbed by the rise of the Euro against the Dollar. The applicant is thus of the opinion that economic indicators do not justify refunds being abolished.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission held that it would be appropriate for the contested regulation to enter into force immediately ‘in order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management’. The applicant submits that that statement of reasons, which is identical to that of preceding regulations, is particularly inadequate in the present case since the sudden removal of export refunds without prior notice, which would have permitted adaptation of the economic model of operators, could instead lead to internal market disruption. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission held that it would be appropriate for the contested regulation to enter into force immediately ‘in order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management’. The applicant submits that that statement of reasons, which is identical to that of preceding regulations, is particularly inadequate in the present case since the sudden removal of export refunds without prior notice, which would have permitted adaptation of the economic model of operators, could instead lead to internal market disruption.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Commission, since it did not adopt the contested regulation on a ground provided for in Regulation No 1234/2007. (1) |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Commission, since it did not adopt the contested regulation on a ground provided for in Regulation No 1234/2007. (1)

1

---

(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).

1

---