# C_2016270EN.01006401.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/64

---

Action brought on 7 June 2016 — Fruits de Ponent v Commission

(Case T-290/16)

(2016/C 270/70)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fruits de Ponent, SCCL (Alcarràs, Spain) (represented by: M. Roca Junyent, J. Mier Albert, R. Vallina Hoset, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Order the European Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by Escarp. S.C.P., Agropecuaria Sebcar, S.L. and Rusfal 2000, S.L., as a result of their actions and omissions in connection with the disturbances suffered in the peach and nectarine markets during the 2014 marketing year and, in particular, as a result of adopting Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 913/2014 and Delegated Regulation (EU) No 932/2014. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by Escarp. S.C.P., Agropecuaria Sebcar, S.L. and Rusfal 2000, S.L., as a result of their actions and omissions in connection with the disturbances suffered in the peach and nectarine markets during the 2014 marketing year and, in particular, as a result of adopting Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 913/2014 and Delegated Regulation (EU) No 932/2014.

| — | Order the European Commission to pay:






  — | To Escarp, S.C.P., an amount of EUR 121 085,11, and the corresponding compensatory and default interest. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay:

—

To Escarp, S.C.P., an amount of EUR 121 085,11, and the corresponding compensatory and default interest.

| — | To Agropecuaria Sebcar, S.L., an amount of EUR 162 540,46, and the corresponding compensatory and default interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

To Agropecuaria Sebcar, S.L., an amount of EUR 162 540,46, and the corresponding compensatory and default interest.

| — | To Rusfal 2000, S.L., an amount of EUR 28 808,99, and the corresponding compensatory and default interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

To Rusfal 2000, S.L., an amount of EUR 28 808,99, and the corresponding compensatory and default interest.

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application seeks compensation for damage allegedly suffered as a result of the actions and omissions of the European Commission in connection with the disturbances suffered in the peach and nectarine markets during the 2014 marketing year and, in particular, but not exclusively, a result of adopting Delegated Regulation No 913/2014 (1) and Delegated Regulation (EU) No 932/2014 (2).

1

2

In support of its application, the applicant relies on a single plea, alleging that the conditions imposed by EU case-law, in order to recognise the right to compensation based on the non-contractual liability of the European Union, are fulfilled.

In that regard it is alleged, first, that by their actions and omissions the Commission has committed a sufficiently serious infringement of rules intended to confer rights on individuals, such as the principle of duty of diligence, the principles of assistance and protection, the principle of good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, finally, the principle of the prohibition against arbitrary action.

This is the case in so far as, by adopting measures to prevent disruptions in the peach and nectarine market in the summer of 2014, the Commission:

| — | Adopted a crisis mechanism that it had itself previously considered inappropriate and ineffective, as it was not used by the producer organisations because they are too small and lack the resources to avail of it. |
| --- | --- |

—

Adopted a crisis mechanism that it had itself previously considered inappropriate and ineffective, as it was not used by the producer organisations because they are too small and lack the resources to avail of it.

| — | It did not collect market information. |
| --- | --- |

—

It did not collect market information.

| — | It acted without obtaining adequate data concerning the withdrawal measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

It acted without obtaining adequate data concerning the withdrawal measures.

| — | It intervened belatedly. |
| --- | --- |

—

It intervened belatedly.

Furthermore, the applicant continues, the measures of co-financed withdrawal of products and of free advertising and distribution were objectively inadequate.

It is also alleged that the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons.

Secondly, it is claimed that the three companies concerned suffered actual and certain damage, which is also quantifiable.

Finally, there is a causal link between that damage and the unlawful conduct of the Commission.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 913/2014 of 21 August 2014 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for producers of peaches and nectarines (OJ 2014 L 248, p. 1)

1

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 932/2014 of 29 August 2014 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for producers of certain fruit and vegetables and amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 913/2014 (OJ 2014 L 259, p. 2).

2

---