CELEX: 62013CN0682
Language: en
Date: 2013-12-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-682/13 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2013 by Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2013 in Case T-13/12 Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH v European Commission

15.2.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 45/27
            
         Appeal brought on 23 December 2013 by Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2013 in Case T-13/12 Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-682/13 P)
   2014/C 45/45
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               partially set aside the order of the General Court delivered on 15 October 2013 in Case T-13/12 in so far as it dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides, (1) published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2011, and
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides, published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2011.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant alleges, first, infringement of its fundamental rights to due process under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The action for annulment, it submits, is allowed on its merits by the primary law of the European Union. The fundamental right under the first sentence of Article 47 seeks to ensure that effective use can be made of remedies allowed on their merits. The order of the General Court infringes the appellant’s right to an effective remedy within the meaning of the guarantee of effective legal protection under the first sentence of Article 47 of the Charter.
   Secondly, the appellant alleges infringement of its fundamental right under the second sentence of Article 47 inasmuch as its fundamental right under Article 21 to non-discrimination and its fundamental right under Article 16 to the fundamental legal guarantee of the freedom to conduct a business are infringed without its action brought having been treated as an effective legal remedy. The appellant takes issue with its discrimination as a producer of organic foodstuffs on the ground that the authorisation of steviol glycosides occurred in a manner which conferred on its conventional competitors an unfounded and unfair competitive advantage.
   The appellant seeks, in addition, to be treated equally by the European Union legislature. It alleges infringement of the general principle of equality under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It also alleges discrimination under Article 21 of the Charter in its capacity as an undertaking producing organic food vis-à-vis conventional food undertakings. With a view to establishing that the discrimination in question is arbitrary, the appellant invokes the European Union’s agreement with the United States of America of February 2012, which allows organic products produced with steviol glycosides in accordance with US organic law to be distributed within the European Union’s internal market with the organic logo of the EU. This, it argues, shows that there is no valid reason to allow the appellant’s conventional competitors to produce yoghurt with steviol glycosides and, in addition, to choose a legal instrument which causes the appellant itself to be denied that freedom to conduct a business. The appellant alleges infringement of its fundamental right under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the guarantee of its freedom to conduct a business.
   
      (1)  OJ 2011 L 295, p. 205.