Case C-475/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 June 2019 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2019 in Case T-229/17, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
Date: 2019-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC conformity marking, European standard, dangerous substance, floor coverings, harmonisation of standards, launching of a product, marketing standard, sports facilities, technical specification, technical standard








C_2019270EN.01002501.xml










12.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/25






Appeal brought on 20 June 2019 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2019 in Case T-229/17, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
(Case C-475/19 P)
(2019/C 270/29)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, acting as Agent, M. Kottmann, M. Winkelmüller and F. van Schewick, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






1.


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 April 2019 in Case T-229/17, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission;










2.


annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/133 of 25 January 2017 on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14342:2013 ‘Wood flooring and parquet: Characteristics, evaluation of conformity and marking’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (1)











3.


annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/145 of 25 January 2017 on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14904:2006 ‘Surfaces for sport areas — Indoor surfaces for multi-sports use: Specification’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (2)











4.


annul the Commission communications in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 10 March 2017, 11 August 2017, 15 December 2017 and 9 March 2018 (3) in so far as they relate to the harmonised standards EN 14342:2013 and EN 14904:2006;










5.


as an alternative to the second, third and fourth heads of claim above, refer the case back to the General Court;










6.


order the Commission to pay the costs in the proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on the following three grounds of appeal:
First, the judgment under appeal infringes the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU as it dismisses the Federal Republic of Germany’s heads of claim seeking the annulment of the communications at issue as inadmissible. The General Court failed to recognise that the communications at issue are intended to produce binding legal effects that are not identical to the legal effects of the decisions at issue.
Second, the judgment under appeal infringes Article 18(2), in conjunction with Article 17(5), of Regulation No 305/2011. The General Court failed to recognise that, under these provisions, the Commission was both empowered and obliged to take one of the measures proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany.
Third, the judgment under appeal infringes Article 18(2), in conjunction with Articles 3(1) and (2) and 17(3), of Regulation No 305/2011. The General Court failed to recognise that under those provisions the Commission was obliged to investigate whether the standards at issue jeopardised the observance of compliance with the basic requirements for construction works.


(1)  OJ 2017 L 21, p. 113.

(2)  OJ 2017 L 22, p. 62.

(3)  OJ 2017 C 76, p. 32; OJ 2017 C 267, p. 16; OJ 2017 C 435, p. 41; OJ 2018 C 92, p. 139.