# C_2019372EN.01003201.xml

| 4.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/32

---

Action brought on 16 August 2019 – Micreos Food Safety v Commission

(Case T-568/19)

(2019/C 372/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Micreos Food Safety BV (Wageningen, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions of the Director General for Health and Food Safety of 17 June 2019, forming a unity, by which the Commission: a) definitively refrained from the pursuance of the relevant Comitology procedure in relation to the Commission Draft Regulation ‘permitting the use of ListexTM P100 for the reduction of Listeria monocytogenes on Ready-To-Eat products of animal origin’ as a decontaminant under Regulation (EC) 853/2004 (1); b) refused to examine such use of ListexTM P100 as a non-decontaminating processing aid, and; c) prohibited for the first time the further placing on the market of ListexTM P100 being on the market since 2006 for use as a processing aid on animal-derived Ready-To-Eat food; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the Director General for Health and Food Safety of 17 June 2019, forming a unity, by which the Commission: a) definitively refrained from the pursuance of the relevant Comitology procedure in relation to the Commission Draft Regulation ‘permitting the use of ListexTM P100 for the reduction of Listeria monocytogenes on Ready-To-Eat products of animal origin’ as a decontaminant under Regulation (EC) 853/2004 (1); b) refused to examine such use of ListexTM P100 as a non-decontaminating processing aid, and; c) prohibited for the first time the further placing on the market of ListexTM P100 being on the market since 2006 for use as a processing aid on animal-derived Ready-To-Eat food; and

| — | order the defendant to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision as far as it rejected the application of the applicant to get recognition of ListexTM P100 as a decontaminant is taken without prior vote in SCoPAFF contrary to Articles 289 (1) and 291 (2) TFEU and Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EU) 182/2011 (2). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision as far as it rejected the application of the applicant to get recognition of ListexTM P100 as a decontaminant is taken without prior vote in SCoPAFF contrary to Articles 289 (1) and 291 (2) TFEU and Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EU) 182/2011 (2).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is illegal on the ground that it was adopted on the basis of political considerations despite the fact that it is an implementing act. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is illegal on the ground that it was adopted on the basis of political considerations despite the fact that it is an implementing act.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the interpretation of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) 853/2004 was wrong. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the interpretation of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) 853/2004 was wrong.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of reasoning and in any event illegal reasoning by not distinguishing between a decontaminant and a non-decontaminating processing aid. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of reasoning and in any event illegal reasoning by not distinguishing between a decontaminant and a non-decontaminating processing aid.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to consult SCoPAFF as far as the applicant requested recognition of ListexTM P100 as a non-decontaminating processing aid. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to consult SCoPAFF as far as the applicant requested recognition of ListexTM P100 as a non-decontaminating processing aid.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 168 (3) TFEU by failing to ensure via ListexTM P100 protection and prevention from Listeria. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 168 (3) TFEU by failing to ensure via ListexTM P100 protection and prevention from Listeria.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 14(9) of Regulation (EC) 178/2002 (3) and of the fundamental freedom of free circulation of goods. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 14(9) of Regulation (EC) 178/2002 (3) and of the fundamental freedom of free circulation of goods.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of legal expectations of the applicant as since 2006 ListexTM P100 was in the market and in 2016 EFSA declared it safe. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of legal expectations of the applicant as since 2006 ListexTM P100 was in the market and in 2016 EFSA declared it safe.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 55).

(2)  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).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).

---