# C_2019280EN.01004201.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/42

---

Action brought on 17 May 2019 — Graanhandel P. van Schelven v Commission

(Case T-306/19)

(2019/C 280/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Graanhandel P. van Schelven BV (Nieuwe Tonge, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Almeida, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 1(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/446; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/446; (1)

| — | order the defendant to produce all relevant documents leading to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2019/446. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to produce all relevant documents leading to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2019/446.

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 Commission’s revocation of ‘Control Union Certifications’ (CUC) as an EU organic certifier appears arbitrary as it is based on false facts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s revocation of ‘Control Union Certifications’ (CUC) as an EU organic certifier appears arbitrary as it is based on false facts.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s subjective right to be protected from the arbitrary revoking of Commission appointments of organic certifiers to run EU organic controls in third countries was violated. Its interest as a competitor in the organic market was not protected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s subjective right to be protected from the arbitrary revoking of Commission appointments of organic certifiers to run EU organic controls in third countries was violated. Its interest as a competitor in the organic market was not protected.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that, with the revocation of CUC’s appointment as an EU organic certifier, the supply of organic products in decade-long trade relations are blocked and the applicant’s rights as importer have been directly affected. Such direct concern is established by the contested regulation as the applicant was the recipient, as importer, of certificates of inspection issued by CUC which enabled it to access the EU organic food and feed market. CUC is the organic certifier for the farms in the Black Sea region from which the applicant’s main supplier sources the organic products. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that, with the revocation of CUC’s appointment as an EU organic certifier, the supply of organic products in decade-long trade relations are blocked and the applicant’s rights as importer have been directly affected. Such direct concern is established by the contested regulation as the applicant was the recipient, as importer, of certificates of inspection issued by CUC which enabled it to access the EU organic food and feed market. CUC is the organic certifier for the farms in the Black Sea region from which the applicant’s main supplier sources the organic products.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s right to be subject only to proportionate interference with its business as well as the basic fundamental guarantee of its property and its freedom to engage in commerce. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s right to be subject only to proportionate interference with its business as well as the basic fundamental guarantee of its property and its freedom to engage in commerce.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, referring to the applicant’s second head of claim, which seeks access to Commission documents, alleging that the applicant enjoys the general access rights granted under EU law and based on the guarantee of due process and the right to be heard as protected by relevant human rights instruments. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, referring to the applicant’s second head of claim, which seeks access to Commission documents, alleging that the applicant enjoys the general access rights granted under EU law and based on the guarantee of due process and the right to be heard as protected by relevant human rights instruments.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/446 of 19 March 2019 amending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries (OJ 2019 L 77, p. 67).

---