Case C-183/16 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2016 by Tilly-Sabco against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2016 in Case T-397/13 Tilly-Sabco v Commission
Date: 2016-03-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common organisation of markets, export (EU), export refund, poultrymeat








C_2016211EN.01003201.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/32






Appeal brought on 31 March 2016 by Tilly-Sabco against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2016 in Case T-397/13 Tilly-Sabco v Commission

(Case C-183/16 P)
(2016/C 211/42)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Tilly-Sabco (represented by: R. Milchior, F. Le Roquais and S. Charbonnel, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 in Case T-397/13, except as regards the admissibility of the action;










—


decide, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to give final judgment in the matter itself and annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat (1) at zero;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds in support of its appeal.
The first ground alleges misinterpretation by the Court of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. (2) The appellant claims that the Commission did not permit the management committee to consider, within the prescribed period, all the information, including the refund rate, necessary in order to give its opinion on the draft regulation.
The second ground alleges misinterpretation of Article 164(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation). (3) The appellant submits, inter alia, that the Court wrongly categorised Implementing Regulation No 689/2013 as a ‘periodic agricultural instrument’.
The third ground alleges that there is no justification, or no adequate statement of reasons, for Implementing Regulation No 689/2013 and, in particular, focuses on its being categorised as a ‘standard regulation’ and the reasons for setting the refunds at ‘zero’. Furthermore, the appellant complains that the method of determining the refund rate is not subject to judicial review and that the statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal as regards the gradual lowering of the refund rates is self-contradictory.
The fourth ground alleges a breach of law or a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Court failed to interpret correctly the criteria in Article 164(3) of Regulation No 1234/2007. The appellant submits that, with regard to certain criteria, the Court endorsed the Commission’s taking, at its own discretion and without giving reasons, into account the 2009-2013 reference period, that is to say, a very long period from long ago, instead of the year 2013 as required by the relevant provisions and, in particular, Article 164(3)(a) of Regulation No 1234/2007. According to this plea, the Court also committed a manifest error of assessment in considering, inter alia, that the price difference with regard to Brazilian poultry did not necessitate the introduction of export refunds to ensure equilibrium in the EU poultry meat market and the natural development of prices and trade on that market. Lastly, the Court acknowledged that the Commission had erred in submitting before it arguments different from those submitted before the management committee.


(1)  OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13.

(2)  OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13.

(3)  OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1.