Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62019TN0518

    Case T-518/19: Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Sipcam Oxon v Commission

    OJ C 305, 9.9.2019, p. 65–66 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    22/07/2019
    Date lodged:
    22/07/2019
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    English
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Link

    9.9.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 305/65

    Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Sipcam Oxon v Commission

    (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 wad adopted in breach of the precautionary principle.
    Top