16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/30

(Case T-817/14)

(2015/C 089/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Zoofachhandel Züpke GmbH (Wesel, Germany), Zoohaus Bürstadt, Helmut Ofenloch GmbH & Co. KG (Bürstadt, Germany), Zoofachgeschäft — Vogelgroßhandel Import-Export Heinz Marche (Heinsberg, Germany), Rita Bürgel (Uthleben, Germany), Norbert Kass (Altenbeken, Germany) (represented by: C. Correll, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—order the defendant to repair the damage suffered since 1 January 2010 by the applicants as a result of the adoption of a prohibition on importation of wild birds captured in the EU, a prohibition which applies almost worldwide, included in Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 of 23 March 2007 (OJ 2007 L 84, p. 7) and/or in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 of 7 January 2013 (OJ 2013 L 47, p. 1);

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants claim, first, that as a result of the continuation, without a critical approach, of the prohibition on importation in its extremely broad geographical scope, the Commission infringed the freedom to carry out an economic activity and, in part, the right to property enjoyed by the applicants. In the light of scientific knowledge acquired in any event since 2010, that prohibition is not capable of being justified by overriding considerations such as the protection of health.

Secondly, the applicants claim that, by maintaining the prohibition on importation, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and the principles of effective work because it failed to take into consideration the current state of the data or the current state of scientific knowledge. The worldwide prohibition on the importation of wild birds continues to be based on knowledge and assumptions dating from 2005, at a time when avian influenza, originating in Asia, spread for the first time in Europe and where it was necessary to act quickly. According to the applicants, the data collected over the following years do not justify, in any event since 2010, such a geographically wide prohibition on importation. Furthermore, it was clearly necessary in the meantime to make provision for other more effective and much less restrictive methods for the applicants such as consistent surveillance of migrating birds.

Third, the applicants maintain that they suffered an actual and certain damage and that there is a causal link between that damage and the Commission’s unlawful behaviour.