CELEX: 62014TN0820
Language: en
Date: 2014-12-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-820/14: Action brought on 20 December 2014  — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission

23.2.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 65/43
            
         Action brought on 20 December 2014 — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission
   (Case T-820/14)
   (2015/C 065/59)
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Delta Group agroalimentare Srl (Porto Viro, Italy) (represented by: V. Migliorini, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Forms of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Declare null and void and, in any event, annul letter SM/SE S/2622874 of 28 July 2014 from Jerzy Plewa, Director-General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development at the European Commission, addressed to Felice Assenza, Director General of International and European Union policies at the Italian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Policy, of which the applicant became aware as a result of a request for access to documents dated 19 November 2014, in so far as it rejects Italy’s application for support measures in respect of requests No 6 to 9 made pursuant to Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 and, in particular, those relating to undertakings marketing animals slaughtered as part of the implementation of health measures against the spread of avian influenza and related commercial losses, and also Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1071/2014 of 10 October 2014 on exceptional support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 11 October 2014, in so far as it excludes from support measures, adopted pursuant to Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, undertakings marketing animals slaughtered as part of the implementation of health measures against the spread of avian influenza and related commercial losses.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea alleging infringement of Article 40(2) TFEU and in particular the principle of non-discrimination, with manifest error of assessment and misuse of power
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant claims in that regard that since the same biosecurity measures which have damaged the flocks of laying hens of Imola, Lugo, Occhiobello and Mordano, in respect of which support measures under Regulation (EU) No 1071/2014 have been granted, also damaged the applicant given that it had to take supply of those animals culled in order to have them butchered and sell them to its own customers, excluding from the support measures the undertaking which had to take supply of those affected animals in order to market them and including only the undertakings which had bred those animals constitutes unlawful discrimination between operators in the food supply chain, contrary to Article 40(2) TFEU. Article 40(2) TFEU moreover expressly provides for ‘aids for the production and marketing of the various products.’
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea alleging infringement of Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant claims in that regard that Article 220(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 provides for measures to support the market to take account of the limitations to trade resulting from the application of measures to combat the spread of animal diseases. The damage affecting trade is therefore the very damage that is to be compensated as part of the measures taken pursuant to Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 and that damage cannot be regarded as damage which is indirect in relation to the damage affecting the phase prior to that of trade (damage to livestock).
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and, in particular, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission’s decision to reject Italy’s request that support measures for commercial undertakings and commercial loss be covered, referred to in the contested letter, has been taken without the advice of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets, thereby breaching an essential procedural requirement set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, applicable by virtue of the reference made in Article 229 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, which, in turn, is referred to in Article 220 of that latter regulation.