Case T-630/14: Action brought on 20 August 2014  — Primo Valore v Commission
Date: 2014-08-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, equal treatment, harmonisation of standards, health risk, infringement of EU law, plant health control, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2014361EN.01002701.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/27





Action brought on 20 August 2014 — Primo Valore v Commission
(Case T-630/14)
2014/C 361/41
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Primo Valore (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Moretto, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation No 999/2001 (1), Regulation No 178/2002 (2), and the general principles of non-discrimination and proportionality, by refraining from calling upon the Scrutiny Committee, in accordance with the procedure outlined in Article 5a(1) to (4) of Decision 1999/468/EC, to vote on a draft measure to review point 2 of Annex V to Regulation No 999/2001, pursuant to which specified risk material originating from Member States of the European Union must be removed and destroyed even if those Member States have been recognised as countries with a negligible BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) risk.










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, based on the Commission’s duty to act, in accordance with the last sentence of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 999/2001 (in conjunction with Article 5(1) and (3) of that regulation and Article 5(3) of Regulation No 178/2002), the second sentence of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002, and Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation No 999/2001.






—


In that regard, the applicant claims that, pursuant to the provisions cited above, the Commission is obliged to review the temporary derogation introduced by point 2 of Annex V to Regulation No 999/2001 and to submit to the Scrutiny Committee, following the procedure outlined in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC, a draft measure to amend that annex. This must be done in order to ensure compliance with the international health standards adopted by the [International Office of Epizootic Diseases (‘OIE’)], which do not call for a list of specified risk material from countries which — like Italy — have been recognised as countries with a negligible risk or as countries whose risk level is the lowest possible under the international classification system adopted by the OIE.














2.


Second plea in law, based on the Commission’s duty to act, in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination, the second sentence of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002, and Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation No 999/2001.






—


In that regard, the applicant claims that, by virtue of the principle and provisions cited above, when the OIE recognised certain Member States of the European Union — Italy included — as countries with a negligible BSE risk (namely, May 2008, May 2011, May 2012 and May 2013), the Commission was required to update its legislation in the light of that new information and to review the derogation provided for in point 2 of Annex V to Regulation No 999/2001 in order to ensure observance of the principle of non-discrimination: first, the derogation in question treats differently similar situations: that of producers in Member States and that of producers in third countries which have been recognised as countries with a negligible BSE risk. Secondly, it treats identically different situations: that of producers in Member States which have been recognised as countries with a negligible BSE risk and that of producers in Member States which have not received such recognition.














3.


Third plea in law, based on the Commission’s duty to act, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, Article 7(2) of Regulation No 178/2002, and Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation No 999/2001.






—


In that regard, the applicant claims that, by virtue of the principle and provisions cited above, following the OIE’s recognition of certain Member States of the European Union as countries with a negligible BSE risk, the Commission was under an obligation to update its legislation in the light of that new information and to review the temporary derogation provided for in point 2 of Annex V to Regulation No 999/2001 in order to ensure observance of the principle of proportionality. According to the applicant, it should be noted (inter alia) that the Commission’s decision not to review the derogation provided for in point 2 of that annex is not suitable for attaining the objective of protecting health on which it is relying.










(1)  Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2001 L 147, p. 1).

(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).