- 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-518/19: Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Sipcam Oxon v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0518
62019TN0518
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 305/65
(Case T-518/19)
(2019/C 305/75)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Sipcam Oxon SpA (Milano, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu, P. Sellar, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—declare the application admissible and well-founded;
—annul the contested Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/677 of 29 April 2019;
—order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted further to manifest errors of assessment.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation results from a procedure during which the applicant’s rights of defence have not been respected.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty because of the incorrect application of guidelines.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the precautionary principle.