28.4.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/15

(Case C-113/14)

(2014/C 129/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, A. Wiedemann, Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—annul Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/01 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1);

—annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013 of 16 December 2013 determining measures on fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, (2) which refers to Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013;

—rule that the effects of the aforementioned legal provisions be considered definitive until provisions adopted on the correct legal basis enter into force;

—order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Federal Republic of Germany seeks annulment of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 which establishes the common organisation of agricultural markets, was adopted in its entirety on the legal basis of Article 43(2) TFEU.

However, according to the Federal Government, Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 constitutes a ‘measure on fixing prices’ within the meaning of Article 43(3) TFEU. The Federal Government therefore takes the view that Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 should not have been adopted on the legal basis of Article 43(2) TFEU but on the legal basis of Article 43(3) TFEU. According to the Federal Government, Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 therefore uses an incorrect legal basis.

The Federal Government claims that, for reasons of legal certainty and clarity, Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013, which refers to Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, must also be annulled. By referring to Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, which must, in its view, be annulled, Article 2 contributes to giving the false impression that it uses the correct legal basis and is lawful.

In the Federal Government's opinion, the effects of the aforementioned legal provisions must be considered definitive until provisions adopted on the correct legal basis enter into force, in order to protect overriding interests, on grounds of the protection of legitimate expectations for agricultural holdings and on grounds of legal certainty, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 264 TFEU.

(1)

(2)