CELEX: 62019TN0561
Language: en
Date: 2019-08-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-561/19: Action brought on 13 August 2019 — Lípidos Santiga v Commission

30.9.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 328/73
            
         
      Action brought on 13 August 2019 — Lípidos Santiga v Commission
      (Case T-561/19)
      (2019/C 328/81)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Lípidos Santiga, SA (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: P. Muñiz Fernández, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul Article 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 of 13 March 2019, supplementing Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the determination of high indirect land-use change-risk feedstock for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high carbon stock is observed and the certification of low indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels and its Annex;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the global approach of the defendant, as a result of which palm oil qualifies as a high ILUC-risk feedstock is not proportionate.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in deciding that palm oil regardless of its origin is a high ILUC-risk feedstock.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the criteria for the classification of palm oil as a high ILUC-risk feedstock are discriminatory.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to conduct the necessary impact assessment prior to the adoption of the contested Regulation.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state the reasons underlying the design of the formula used for deciding that palm oil is a high ILUC-risk feedstock.