EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/16

Appeal brought on 13 May 2016 by Binca Seafoods GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2016 in Case T-94/15 Binca Seafoods GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-268/16 P)

(2016/C 279/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Binca Seafoods GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the order of the Court of 11 March 2016 registered as Case T-94/15 and

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture (1).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal seeks the annulment of the order of the Court of 11 March 2016 registered as Case T-94/15, which declared the appellant’s action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture, together with the application that that regulation should be declared null and void, to be inadmissible.

The appellant alleges an infringement of its fundamental rights to due process under Title VI, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The action for annulment, it submits, is allowed on its merits by the primary law of the European Union. The fundamental right under the first sentence of Article 47 seeks to ensure that effective use can be made of remedies allowed on their merits. The order of the General Court infringes the appellant’s right to an effective remedy within the meaning of the guarantee of effective legal protection under the first sentence of Article 47 of the Charter.

The appellant alleges an infringement of its fundamental right under the second sentence of Article 47 inasmuch as its fundamental right under Article 21 to non-discrimination and its fundamental right under Article 16 to the fundamental legal guarantee of the freedom to conduct a business are infringed without its action having been treated as an effective legal remedy. The Court misconstrued the object of its complaint, which was to obtain competitive protection, as a claim to itself benefit from the extended transitional provisions, which however is not the object of its action for annulment.

The appellant complains that it is discriminated against as a provider of pangasius aquaculture products in Vietnam in relation to providers of aquaculture animal products, in particular those in the European Union, in relation to which transitional provisions were extended by the contested regulation beyond the end of 2015, whereas those provisions terminated in relation to pangasius.

The appellant alleges that its competitors were able, as a result of arbitrary advantages, to offer their products with the ‘Bio’ label, whereas it was unable to benefit from that. It claims that the competitors have an unfair and completely unjustified competitive advantage in that those competitors are able to use the ‘Bio’ label although they fail to fully comply with the requirements of EU Bio-law. The appellant claims that it should be treated equally by the Union legislature.

It alleges an infringement of the general principle of equality under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and discrimination under Article 21. It also alleges an infringement of its fundamental right under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the guarantee of its freedom to conduct a business.

(1) OJ 2014 L 365, p. 97.