29.10.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/25

Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-481/11)

2011/C 319/53

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

annul the fifth indent of Point D of Part 2(VI) of Annex I to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors and,

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 breach of the principle of hierarchy of norms

—

The applicant submits that the contested regulation is contrary to the provisions of Article 113(2)(a) of the Council Regulation of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1).

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers

—

It is alleged in this regard that the Commission, by adopting the contested measure, acted with the main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated, since it departed from the applicable standard adopted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE).

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons

—

It is alleged in this regard that the contested measure has unclear reasoning, which justifies a decision contrary to that finally adopted.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment

—

It is alleged in this regard that the contested measure makes the marketing of citrus fruit subject to conditions that are more stringent than for other fruit and vegetables, without justification.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality

—

It is alleged in this regard that the contested measure imposes a more stringent labelling condition on the basis of flawed reasoning that cannot justify the decision finally adopted.

(1)  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1/49; last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2010 of 15 June 2010 (OJ L 150, 16.6.2010, p. 40) and Regulation (EU) No 1234/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 (OJ L 346, 30.12.2010, p. 11).