# C_2019328EN.01007301.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/73

---

Action brought on 13 August 2019 — Lípidos Santiga v Commission

(Case T-561/19)

(2019/C 328/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lípidos Santiga, SA (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: P. Muñiz Fernández, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 of 13 March 2019, supplementing Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the determination of high indirect land-use change-risk feedstock for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high carbon stock is observed and the certification of low indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels and its Annex; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 of 13 March 2019, supplementing Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the determination of high indirect land-use change-risk feedstock for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high carbon stock is observed and the certification of low indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels and its Annex;

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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 that the global approach of the defendant, as a result of which palm oil qualifies as a high ILUC-risk feedstock is not proportionate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the global approach of the defendant, as a result of which palm oil qualifies as a high ILUC-risk feedstock is not proportionate.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in deciding that palm oil regardless of its origin is a high ILUC-risk feedstock. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in deciding that palm oil regardless of its origin is a high ILUC-risk feedstock.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the criteria for the classification of palm oil as a high ILUC-risk feedstock are discriminatory. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the criteria for the classification of palm oil as a high ILUC-risk feedstock are discriminatory.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to conduct the necessary impact assessment prior to the adoption of the contested Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to conduct the necessary impact assessment prior to the adoption of the contested Regulation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state the reasons underlying the design of the formula used for deciding that palm oil is a high ILUC-risk feedstock. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state the reasons underlying the design of the formula used for deciding that palm oil is a high ILUC-risk feedstock.

---