- 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-361/21: Action brought on 22 June 2021 — Syndesmos Tyrokomon Kyprou and Others v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0361
62021TN0361
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 357/26
(Case T-361/21)
(2021/C 357/41)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Syndesmos Tyrokomon Kyprou (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 11 other applicants (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—annul the defendant’s Implementing Regulation No 2021/591 of 12 April 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ (PDO)); (1) and
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has conducted a manifest error of assessment on the conformity of the application for registration No CY/PDO/0005/01243 with the Regulation No 1151/2012. (2) It is argued that the defendant infringed Articles 10, 49 and 50 of Regulation No 1151/2012 and failed to properly scrutinize the application for registration of ‘Halloumi’ as a PDO. (3)
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Articles 10, 49 and 50 of Regulation No 1151/2012 by non-verifying the compliance with the procedure laid down by Regulation No 1151/2012.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of good administration because of the extreme duration of the procedure of registration.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation is insufficiently motivated. It is argued that the defendant infringed its obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 of the TFEU and the right of the applicants to an effective remedy.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of good administration because the Cypriot Courts have annulled the internal national acts on which the contested Regulation is based.
(1) OJ 2021 L 125, p 42-51.
(2) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1-29).
(3) Protected Designation of Origin.