EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/12

Appeal brought on 12 July 2013 by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2013 in Case T-526/10: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others v European Commission, Council of the European Union, European Parliament

(Case C-398/13 P)

2013/C 274/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association, Pangnirtung Hunters' and Trappers' Association, Jaypootie Moesesie, Allen Kooneeliusie, Toomasie Newkingnak, David Kuptana, Karliin Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products, Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs, Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council, Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK), William E. Scott & Son, Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diș Ticaret Ltd Șirketi, Northeast Coast Sealers' Co-Operative Society, Ltd (represented by: H. Viaene, avocat, J. Bouckaert, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union, European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the judgment under appeal of the General Court, declare Regulation 1007/2009 (1) illegal and inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU and annul Regulation 737/2010 (2) pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, should the Court of Justice consider that all elements required to decide on the substance of the action for annulment of the contested Regulation are present;

— In the alternative, annul the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;

— Order the European Commission to pay the Appellants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appeal is based on two main grounds, namely the conviction that: 1) the General Court erred in law in the application of Article 95 of the EC Treaty, and 2) the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of fundamental rights principles.

In the First Ground of Appeal, the Appellants allege that the General Court erred in law by not assessing whether the conditions for recourse to Article 95 EC as a legal basis were fulfilled at the relevant time. The Appellants demonstrate that it is at the time of the Commission proposal that the conditions for recourse to Article 95 EC as a legal basis have to be met. The Appellants also consider that the non-fulfilment of the conditions for recourse to Article 95 EC as a legal basis cannot be remedied at the judicial review stage. The Appellants also maintain that the General Court erred in law by applying the wrong criterion when assessing whether existing differences between the national provisions governing trade in seal products were such as to justify the intervention of the Union legislature on the basis of Article 95 EC. In the contested judgment, the General Court applied a threshold based on the criterion of the non-negligible nature of the trade in the products concerned between the Member States. However, the non-negligible character of the trade in a given product is quite different from the ‘relatively sizeable’ character of that trade i.e., the criterion applied by the Court of Justice in its relevant case-law.

In the Second Ground of Appeal, the Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by referring to the provisions of the Charter only. The Appellants consider that the mere fact that the protection conferred by the Articles of the ECHR relied on by the Appellants is implemented in Union law by articles 17, 7, 10 and 11 respectively of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not waive the General Court’s obligation to take into account the ECHR provisions as general principles of law. The Appellants also submit that the General Court erred in law by excluding commercial interests from the scope of the right to property, by concluding that ‘the right to property cannot be extended to protect mere commercial interests’ and by depriving the Appellants from the guarantees laid down in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR. The Appellants also allege that the General Court erred in law by not examining the Basic Regulation in the light of Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Given that the Union must respect international law in the exercise of its powers and that the Basic Regulation must therefore be interpreted in the light of Article 19 of the UNDRIP, the General Court was obliged to examine whether the EU institutions had obtained the free, prior and informed consent of the Appellants before adopting the Basic Regulation.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products, OJ L 286, p. 36

(2) Commission Regulation (EU) NO 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products, OJ L 216, p. 1