Case T-201/13: Action brought on 12 April 2013 — Rubinum SA v Commission
Date: 2013-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Food Safety Authority, animal feedingstuffs, animal welfare, market approval








C_2013164EN.01002101.xml










8.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/21





Action brought on 12 April 2013 — Rubinum SA v Commission
(Case T-201/13)
2013/C 164/37
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Rubinum SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: C. Bittner and P.-C. Scheel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 288/2013;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims in essence as follows:






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 (1)

The applicant argues in this connection that the contested Regulation is based in particular on Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1831/2003 and that the requirements of that provision are not satisfied in the present case. It refers in particular to the fact that the contested Regulation is based only on assumptions and that in fact neither the transfer of antibiotic resistance nor the production of toxins could actually be established.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1831/2003
Here, the applicant claims that the Commission should have decided, pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1831/2003, on the applicant’s application made under Article 10(2) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 1831/2003.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1831/2003
The applicant claims in this regard that it had proved appropriately and sufficiently in various authorisation procedures that the feed additive produced by it did not in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1831/2003 have an adverse effect on human or animal health or on the environment. Furthermore, evidence to the contrary was not forthcoming either from the Commission or the EFSA [European Food Safety Authority].










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (2)

On this point the applicant claims in essence that the contested Regulation is not based on a proper or full risk analysis.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002
The applicant argues in this connection inter alia that the Commission also cannot justify the contested Regulation with reference to the precautionary principle in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation No 178/2002. It argues further that even taking the precautionary principle into account the contested Regulation does not comply with the requirements of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles of European Union law
The applicant in this context claims an infringement of the right to a hearing, the right to fair proceedings and the principle of proportionality.










7.


Infringement of Article 19 of Regulation No 1831/2003
It is claimed in this regard that the Commission failed to respect the two-month period laid down in Article 19 of Regulation No 1831/2003 within which a decision taken by the EFSA or a failure by it to exercise its powers may be reviewed and that it decided on the applicant’s application for review of an opinion of the EFSA only after adoption of the contested Regulation.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 29).

(2)  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).