EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0041
Case T-41/16: Action brought on 28 January 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission
Case T-41/16: Action brought on 28 January 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission
Case T-41/16: Action brought on 28 January 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission
OJ C 118, 4.4.2016, p. 34–35
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
4.4.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 118/34 |
Action brought on 28 January 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission
(Case T-41/16)
(2016/C 118/39)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry (Nicosia, Cyprus), Animal Breeders Association (Nicosia), Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd. (Nicosia), Süt Urünleri İmalatçulari Birliği Milk Processors Association (Nicosia) and Fatma Garanti (Güzelyurt, Cyprus) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
annul Commission Decision Ares(2015)5171539 of 18 November 2015 and Commission Decision Ares(2016)220922 of 15 January 2016 in relation to the opposition procedures concerning the application for registration of ‘ΧΑΛΛΟΥΜΙ’ (HALLOUMI)/‘HELLIM’ (ΠΟΠ) (CY-PDO-0005-01243); |
|
— |
declare the illegality of Articles 49, 50, 51 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, and the inapplicability of those provisions in the case at hand, insofar as they do not provide for a system ensuring the respect of the fundamental rights of the Applicants; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the action. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the contested Commission decisions are illegal insofar as they exclude the applicants from the procedure for the registration of Halloumi/Hellim as a protected designation of origin in the European Union. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Commission decisions are illegal insofar as they breach the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that Articles 49, 50, 51 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1) are illegal and should be declared inapplicable insofar they do not provide for a system ensuring the respect of the fundamental rights of the applicants. |
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 343, p. 1)