- 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 C-176/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 March 2016 by Proforec Srl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 Proforec v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CN0176
62016CN0176
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
30.5.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 191/20
—
(Case C-176/16 P)
(2016/C 191/25)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Appellant: Proforec Srl (represented by: G. Durazzo, M. Mencoboni, G. Pescatore, avvocati)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
—Set aside the order of inadmissibility No 704600 of 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 on the grounds set out, which are to be taken to be referred to and reproduced in full.
—Declare the action admissible and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling, following the adoption of any measures it may think fit to take.
—Order the Commission to pay the costs in the present proceedings. If the present appeal should be dismissed (quod non), the appellant requests that from now on the parties should bear their own costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on the following three grounds on the plea of inadmissibility:
FIRST GROUND: Error in law and in fact regarding the lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings. The General Court, in paragraphs 28 to 31 of the order, erroneously ruled that the applicant had no legal interest in applying for annulment of the Regulation, identifying by means of illogical reasoning the distributors of third party brands as the sole beneficiaries of the annulment of the contested Regulation exclusively, and not Proforec directly.
SECOND GROUND: Failure by the General Court to apply Article 263(4) of TFEU to the consideration of the applicant’s legal interest in bringing proceedings, which was denied.
THIRD GROUND: In paragraphs 32 to 35 of the order of inadmissibility, the General Court did not give an adequate statement of reasons for the applicant’s lack of legal interest, in that it misrepresented the facts concerning the lack of risk of legal proceedings being brought against Proforec, failing to consider it as an existing risk on the date the proceedings were started, and not taking any position on the obvious infringement of the regulation in relation to the omission of a transitional period for the disposal of stocks and packaging.
—