EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-481/11: Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Spain v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0481

62011TN0481

September 6, 2011
With Google you find a lot.
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

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/25

(Case T-481/11)

2011/C 319/53

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

annul the fifth indent of Point D of Part 2(VI) of Annex I to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors and,

order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 breach of the principle of hierarchy of norms

The applicant submits that the contested regulation is contrary to the provisions of Article 113(2)(a) of the Council Regulation of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1).

2.Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers

It is alleged in this regard that the Commission, by adopting the contested measure, acted with the main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated, since it departed from the applicable standard adopted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE).

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons

It is alleged in this regard that the contested measure has unclear reasoning, which justifies a decision contrary to that finally adopted.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment

It is alleged in this regard that the contested measure makes the marketing of citrus fruit subject to conditions that are more stringent than for other fruit and vegetables, without justification.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality

It is alleged in this regard that the contested measure imposes a more stringent labelling condition on the basis of flawed reasoning that cannot justify the decision finally adopted.

*

(1) OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1/49; last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2010 of 15 June 2010 (OJ L 150, 16.6.2010, p. 40) and Regulation (EU) No 1234/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 (OJ L 346, 30.12.2010, p. 11).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia