15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/34

(Case T-526/10)

()

2011/C 13/66

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Ottawa, Canada), Nativak Hunters and Trappers Association (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada), Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association (Pangnirtung, Canada), Jaypootie Moesesie (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada), Allen Kooneeliusie (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada), Toomasie Newkingnak (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada), David Kuptana (Ulukhaktok, Canada), Karliin Aariak (Iqaluit, Canada), Canadian Seal Marketing Group (Quebec QC, Canada), Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc. (Cap-aux-Meules, Canada), Fur Institute of Canada (Ottawa, Canada), NuTan Furs Inc. (Catalina, Canada), GC Rieber Skinn AS (Bergen, Norway), Inuit Circumpolar Conference Greeneland (ICC) (Nuuk, Greenland), Johannes Egede (Nuuk, Greenland), Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) (Nuuk, Greenland), William E. Scott & Son (Edinburgh, United Kingdom), Association des chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (Cap-aux-Meules, Canada), Hatem Yavuz Deri Sanayi iç Ve Diș Ticaret Limited Șirketi (Istanbul, Turkey), Northeast Coast Sealers’ Co-Operative Society Limited (Fleur de Lys, Canada) (represented by: J. Bouckaert and H. Viaene, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products. The annulment of Regulation No 1007/2009, providing for restrictions on the placing on the market of the European Union of the seal products, is sought by the applicants in the framework of Case T-18/10.

The applicants put forward two pleas in law in support of their claims.

First, they argue that the implementing regulation has for legal basis the basic regulation against which they raise an exception of illegality based on Article 277 TFUE. In this regard, the applicants repeat the arguments put forward in support of their claims in Case T-18/10.

Second, in subsidiary order, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in law when adopting the implementing regulation since it misused the powers conferred to it by the basic regulation. In the applicants’ view, the Commission has used its powers for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred on it and they contend that the true aim pursued by the Commission, when adopting the implementing regulation, was to block any placing on the Union market of seal products.

(1) OJ 2010 L 216, p. 1

(2) OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36

(3) OJ 2010 C 100, p. 41