Case T-1059/23: Action brought on 3 November 2023 — Vossko v Commission
Date: 2023-11-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Brazil, damages, expropriation, import (EU), import restriction, poultrymeat, prepared foodstuff, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, tariff quota








C_202400415EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/415


3.1.2024





Action brought on 3 November 2023 — Vossko v Commission
(Case T-1059/23)
(C/2024/415)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Vossko GmbH & Co. KG (Ostbevern, Germany) (represented by: L. Harings and F. Jacobs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1629; (1)











—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant alleges that Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1629 infringes the treaties of the European Union.
First, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1629 infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (2) The reduction of the tariff rate quota for cooked poultry meat is a de facto restriction on imports. The new quota, which is liable to threaten the applicant’s existence, has affected the very essence of the applicant’s business activities. That action is not justified. It is not justified, at the very least, on account of a lack of proportionality, as Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1629 is neither necessary nor appropriate.
Secondly, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1629 infringes the applicant’s right to property under Article 17 of the Charter. The reduction of the tariff rate quota requires the applicant to make an unjustifiable exceptional sacrifice and thus constitutes a de facto expropriation. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1629 is in direct contradiction with the principle of equality, as it de facto affects primarily the largest importers of cooked poultry meat from Brazil and therefore the applicant in particular. The related adverse effects on the applicant went far beyond what is usually to be expected in the event of legal or political changes. The action in question cannot be justified, as there is no compensation scheme, which is required for cases of expropriation. Furthermore, the quota is also not in the public interest.
Thirdly, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1629 infringes the principles of EU law relating to the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1629 leads to an unforeseeable and significant modification of tariff rate quotas and therefore does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Court of Justice as regards the observance of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1629 does not provide for any transitional arrangements or compensation schemes. Furthermore, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1629 has unlawful genuine retroactive effect, as it has legal effects on situations that had arisen before it was adopted. The applicant already had, before Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1629 came into force, imported a greater number of tonnes of cooked poultry meat from Brazil than that which it will be able to import in the future on account of the reduction.


(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1629 of 9 August 2023 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761 as regards the quantities that may be imported under certain tariff quotas in the sectors of sugar and of poultry following the agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil (OJ 2023 L 202, p. 1).

(2)  
            OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/415/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)