Case C-280/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2016 by Società cooperativa Amrita arl and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2016 in Case T-439/15, Amrita and Others v Commission
Date: 2016-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: import (EU), import restriction, plant disease, plant health control, protection of plant life








C_2016260EN.01003301.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/33





Appeal brought on 17 May 2016 by Società cooperativa Amrita arl and Others against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2016 in Case T-439/15, Amrita and Others v Commission
(Case C-280/16 P)
(2016/C 260/41)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellants: Soc. coop. Amrita arl; Cesi Marta; Comune Agricola Lunella — Soc. mutua coop. arl; Rollo Olga; Borrello Claudia; Società agricola Merico Maria Rosa di Consiglia, Marta e Vito Lisi; Marzo Luigi; Stasi Anna Maria; Azienda Agricola Crie di Miggiano Gianluigi; Castriota Maria Grazia; Azienda Agricola di Cagnoni Fiorella; Azienda Agricola Spirdo ss agr.; Impresa Agricola Stefania Stamerra; Azienda Agricola Clemente Pezzuto di Pezzuto Francesco; Simone Cosimo Antonio; Masseria Alti Pareti Soc. agr. arl (represented by: L. Paccione, V. Stamerra, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court, if appropriate with a declaration confirming that the appellants are fully entitled to bring proceedings;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on the following grounds:






1.



First ground of appeal: error in law. Incorrect assessment of the relevant facts. Inadequate and erroneous reasoning in relation to paragraphs 12 to 22 of the order under appeal

The order under appeal is based on the erroneous premise that the appellants requested the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 2015 L 125, p. 36) in its entirety, rather than, as was in fact the case, the annulment only of the specific parts described in greater detail in the application initiating the proceedings and in the reply to the objection of inadmissibility.










2.



Second ground of appeal: Error in law. Incorrect assessment of the relevant facts. Insufficient, contradictory and erroneous nature of the reasoning

The order under appeal wrongly states that the Commission decision requires enforcement measures on the part of the Italian State in relation to the boundaries of the zone infected by Xylella fastidiosa. The undisputed fact that the decision classifies in a binding manner, as an affected area, the entire administrative province of Lecce, the territorial boundaries of which are already marked on the map, gainsays that argument.










3.



Third ground of appeal: Unlawfulness of paragraph 25, also in relation to paragraph 21, of the order under appeal: contradictory, erroneous and manifestly unfounded nature of the reasoning

The reasoning of the General Court in paragraph 21 of the order under appeal states that, in order to assess whether a regulatory act entails implementing measures, it is necessary to refer to the position of the party relying on the right to bring an action. The General Court derogates from that interpretative criterion in the subsequent paragraph 25 by rejecting the arguments regarding the appellants’ entitlement to bring proceedings.










4.



Fourth ground of appeal: Error in law. Incorrect assessment of the relevant facts. Insufficient, contradictory and erroneous nature of the reasoning

The General Court, on the one hand, holds that the Ministero delle Politiche Agricole italiano (Italian Ministry of Agricultural Policy) adopted enforcement measures in relation to Articles 4, 6 and 7 of the Commission decision by way of decree, whereas, on the other hand, in contradiction to this, it notes that certain measures in the Commission decision are not included in that decree.










5.



Fifth ground of appeal: Error in law. Incorrect assessment of the relevant facts. Insufficient, contradictory and erroneous nature of the reasoning

Paragraph 24 of the order under appeal fails to address the actual content of the first-instance proceedings in which the appellants challenge Article 6(4) and Article 7(4) of the decision, in relation to the obligation to use phytosanitary treatments banned in organic farming, this being an obligation that involves a self-implementing measure causing direct harm to the appellant companies, which would lose their organic certification as a result.










6.



Sixth ground of appeal: Error in law. Incorrect assessment of the relevant facts. Insufficient, contradictory and erroneous nature of the reasoning

Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the order under appeal ignore the documentary evidence produced in the course of the proceedings regarding the individual harm suffered by the appellants as a result of the measures under appeal.










7.



Seventh ground of appeal: Error in law. Failure to rule on the direct harm resulting from the measures under appeal

The General Court failed to rule on the objective existence of the direct harm suffered by the appellant companies as a result of the Commission’s self-implementing measures under appeal.