EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/42

Appeal brought on 12 August 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2013 in Case T-454/10: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) v European Commission

(Case C-457/13 P)

2013/C 344/73

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marcoulli, K. Skelly, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon), Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA), Confederazione Cooperative Italiane

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in its entirety;

— give final judgment in the matter by declaring the application in Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11 as inadmissible and/or unfounded;

— order the Applicants at first instance to bear the costs of the proceedings at first instance and to bear the costs of this appeal;

Should the Court decide to uphold the judgment of the General Court, the Commission respectfully requests the Court to:

— maintain as definitive the effects of the second subparagraph of Article 52(2)a of Regulation No 1580/2007 (1) and of Article 50(3) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 (2) as well as those of Article 60(7) of the latter Regulation, to the extent that payments to producers organisations executed pursuant to those provisions until 15 October of the year of the delivery of the judgment of the Court or such future date thereafter as the Court thinks fit in respect to payments which relate to operational programmes approved before 30 May 2013.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission in the present case requests the Court to set aside the contested judgment of the General Court, to give final judgment in the matter by declaring the applications in Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11 as inadmissible and/or unfounded, and to order the Applicants at first instance to bear the costs of the proceedings at first instance and to bear the costs of this appeal

This appeal arises from proceedings taken by the Applicants seeking an annulment of (i) Article 52(2)a and Annex VIII of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and (ii) annulment of Article 50(3) and Article 60(7) of Commission Regulation No 543/2011.

The Applicants, at first instance were fruit and vegetable processors who claimed that the aforesaid provisions indirectly allow for Union funding of certain processing activities carried out by producer organisations.

The General Court found the proceedings admissible. The General Court held that the granting of aid to producer organisations whose product was then either processed by the organisation itself or by a third party on its behalf, amounted to providing aid for processing activities which was outside of the scope of the Single CMO Regulation (3). In addition the General Court held that the Commission was not entitled to provide aid which discriminated to the detriment of the processors who are not members of a producer organisation and to the advantage of producer organisations in so far as they carry out processing activities.

The Commission submits that in reaching these conclusions, the General Court erred on three counts.

Firstly the Commission submits that the General Court erred in finding the applicants’ actions admissible. The Commission argues that the measures in question are regulatory measures of general application which require implementing measures on the part of the Member States in order to produce legal effects. In addition, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in finding that the measures in question are of direct concern to the applicants. In reaching this conclusion the General Court held that the position of the applicants was the same as that of competitors of a recipient of state aid. The Commission submits that the General Court was incorrect in reaching this conclusion.

On the substantive issue, the Commission submits that the General Court failed to correctly interpret the provisions of the Single CMO Regulation and in particular failed to have adequate regard to the margin of discretion conferred on the Commission by the Council to adopt implementing rules for the Single CMO Regulation.

Finally, the Commission submits that the General Court incorrectly interpreted the principle of non-discrimination as it would apply to schemes providing financial aid under the Single CMO Regulation.

Should the Court decide to dismiss the appeal, the Commission requests that the Court exercise its discretion under Article 264 of TFEU to suspend the effects of the order until 15 October of the year of delivery of its judgment. The Commission seeks such an order to ensure that the effects of the order will apply equally to all producer organisations and will not lead to undue hardship on producer organisations.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector, OJ L 350 p. 1

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, OJ L 157, p. 1

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), OJ L 299, p. 1