5.10.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/34

Action brought on 17 August 2015 — GGP Italy v Commission

(Case T-474/15)

(2015/C 328/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Global Garden Products Italy SpA (GGP Italy) (Castelfranco Veneto, Italy) (represented by: A. Villani, L. D’Amario and M. Caccialanza, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/902, made on 10 June 2015 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 June 2015;

—	adopt any further measures deemed appropriate;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/902 of 10 June 2015 (OJ 2015 L 147, p. 22), in which the Commission held that a restrictive measure adopted by Latvia, pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, concerning a lawnmower produced by the applicant, was justified.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20 of Directive 2006/42/EC, which states that any restrictive measure taken pursuant to that directive must ‘state the exact grounds on which it is based’ and ‘be notified as soon as possible to the party concerned, who shall at the same time be informed of the legal remedies available to him under the laws in force in the Member State concerned and of the time limits to which such remedies are subject’.

—

In that regard, the applicant complains that, since it was never notified of the restrictive measure adopted against it by the Latvian authorities, the contested decision regarded as justified a measure seriously prejudicial to its rights of the defence, as it was adopted at the end of a procedure which was not properly carried out and which was vitiated by serious irregularities, in particular formal ones.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of Directive 2006/42/EC governing obligations to comply with essential safety requirements (Article 5(1)), the free movement of machinery (Article 6(1)), the presumption of conformity with harmonised standards (Article 7) and the safeguard procedure which may be adopted by each Member State (Article 11).

—

In that regard, the applicant asserts that the Commission wrongly regarded the restrictive measure adopted by Latvia as justified. The Latvian authorities contested the alleged non-compliance of the Stiga Collector 35 EL C350 297 352 654/S13 lawnmower with the health and safety requirements listed in Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC by reason of the fact that that machine did not comply with harmonised standard EN 60335-2-77:2010. However, at the time when the machine in question was produced and marketed by the applicant, the more developed standard EN 60335-2-77:2010 had not yet become binding as the only standard capable of giving rise to a presumption of compliance with health and safety requirements, insofar as, during the transition period established by the standard itself, the previous standard EN 60335-2-77:2006 (with which the machine in question was compliant) also remained applicable.