CELEX: 62019TN0518
Language: en
Date: 2019-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-518/19: Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Sipcam Oxon v Commission

9.9.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 305/65
            
         
      Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Sipcam Oxon v Commission
      (Case T-518/19)
      (2019/C 305/75)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Sipcam Oxon SpA (Milano, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu, P. Sellar, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  declare the application admissible and well-founded;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/677 of 29 April 2019;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses of these 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 contested Regulation was adopted further to manifest errors of assessment.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation results from a procedure during which the applicant’s rights of defence have not been respected.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty because of the incorrect application of guidelines.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation wad adopted in breach of the precautionary principle.