—

annul the Contested Decision (1) in its entirety;

—

order that the Commission pay its own costs and the applicants’ costs in connection with these proceedings;

—

draw all useful consequences from the judgment; and

—

order measures of organisation or enquiry as deemed appropriate by the Court.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed essential procedural requirements. The Contested Decision is insufficiently reasoned and the Commission failed to follow properly the advisory committee procedure.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has misused its revocation power under Article 34(11) of Regulation (EU) No. 952/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, because it has based the contested decision on an incorrect interpretation of Article 33 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (3) (‘UCCDA’).

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that Article 33 UCCDA is invalid, because (i) if the Commission has correctly interpreted Article 33 UCCDA that provision is invalid for breach of the requirements of Article 290 TFEU and (ii) it is invalid for such breach in any event.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is in breach of general principles of EU law and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has misused its powers in issuing the Contested Decision and has abused its power to revoke Binding Origin Information decisions, as an inevitable consequence of the pleas above and as a result of the Commission having abused its revocation power to political ends, undermining its proper purpose: to ensure correct and uniform application by Member States of origin rules.