CELEX: 62014TN0338
Language: en
Date: 2014-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-338/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014  — UNIC v Commission

7.7.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 212/41
            
         Action brought on 19 May 2014 — UNIC v Commission
   (Case T-338/14)
   2014/C 212/53
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini, lawyer, and M. Bottino, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Uphold the action and, accordingly, annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The present action has been brought against the European Commission’s decision of 19 March 2014 rejecting the request for initiation of a withdrawal procedure in respect of the preferential tariff arrangements granted to India, Pakistan and Ethiopia with regard to the raw hides and semi-manufactured leather goods referred to in Sections S-8a, S-8b and S-12a of [the GSP Sections, as set out in Annex V to] Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (OJ 2012 L 303, p. 1).
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant claims, in this regard, that the contested decision does not comply with the obligation, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice, to provide a clear, precise and unequivocal statement of reasons.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant claims, in this regard, that there has been a manifest error of assessment regarding (i) whether the temporary withdrawal of preferential arrangements is a sufficient response to the raw material supply problem and (ii) the existence of preconditions for the temporary withdrawal, pursuant to Article 19(1)(d) of Regulation No 978/2012, of the general preferential arrangements granted to India, Ethiopia and Pakistan.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging failure to respect the right to good administration as described in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant claims, in this regard, that there has been a failure to verify whether the conditions listed in Article 19(1)(d) of Regulation No 978/2012 for initiating the procedure for withdrawing generalised tariff preferences have been satisfied.