# C_2016243EN.01003401.xml

| 4.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/34

---

Action brought on 19 April 2016 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-167/16)

(2016/C 243/37)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/180 of 9 February 2016 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU concerning animal health control measures relating to African swine fever in certain Member States, as regards the entries for Estonia, Lithuania and Poland (OJ 2016 L 35, p. 12) in so far as the gmina (commune) of Czyże, the remaining part of the gmina of Zabłudów and the gmina of Hajnówka together with the city of Hajnówka are included in Part II of the Annex to Decision 2014/709/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/180 of 9 February 2016 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU concerning animal health control measures relating to African swine fever in certain Member States, as regards the entries for Estonia, Lithuania and Poland (OJ 2016 L 35, p. 12) in so far as the gmina (commune) of Czyże, the remaining part of the gmina of Zabłudów and the gmina of Hajnówka together with the city of Hajnówka are included in Part II of the Annex to Decision 2014/709/EU;

gmina

gmina

gmina

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its action.

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality by reason of the failure to have regard for the requirement that the contested measures must be necessary for achieving the intended objectives, the failure to have regard for the requirement that the contested measures must be appropriate for achieving the intended objectives, and the failure to have regard for the requirement that those measures must be strictly proportionate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality by reason of the failure to have regard for the requirement that the contested measures must be necessary for achieving the intended objectives, the failure to have regard for the requirement that the contested measures must be appropriate for achieving the intended objectives, and the failure to have regard for the requirement that those measures must be strictly proportionate.

| 2. | Second plea in law: failure to comply with essential formal requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13) and in the rules of procedure of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: failure to comply with essential formal requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13) and in the rules of procedure of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed.

| 3. | Third plea in law: failure to comply with the obligation to set out reasons for the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: failure to comply with the obligation to set out reasons for the contested decision.

---