- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-822/19: Action brought on 3 December 2019 — Asoliva and Anierac v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0822
62019TN0822
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
27.1.2020
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 27/71
(Case T-822/19)
(2020/C 27/72)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicants: Asociación Española de la Industria y Comercio Exportador de Aceite de Oliva (Asoliva) (Madrid, Spain) and Asociación Nacional de Industriales Envasadores y Refinadores de Aceites Comestibles (Anierac) (Madrid) (represented by V. Rodríguez Fuentes, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the General Court should annul Article 1(1)(b) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1604 of 27 September 2019 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis, published in OJ 2019 L 250, p. 14.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties
— The applicants take the view that, by imposing an irrefutable presumption of non-conformity of the quality of olive oil, which gives rise to penalties, the contested act infringes the principle of the presumption of innocence under Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
2.Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty
— The applicants take the view that the irrefutable presumption of non-conformity laid down by the contested act undermines legal certainty, since it is based on a method which, on account of the lack of precision, does not make it possible to ensure compliance with the applicable standard with sufficient certainty.
3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality with respect to the freedom to conduct a business
— The applicants take the view that the irrefutable presumption of non-conformity laid down by the contested act disproportionately restricts the freedom to conduct a business by laying down a restriction thereon with an imprecise method from which absolute consequences are derived, without taking account of other existing methods or means of proof.