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 62016TN0167

Case T-167/16: Action brought on 19 April 2016 — Poland v Commission

OJ C 243, 4.7.2016, 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)

4.7.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/34

Action brought on 19 April 2016 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-167/16)

(2016/C 243/37)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/180 of 9 February 2016 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU concerning animal health control measures relating to African swine fever in certain Member States, as regards the entries for Estonia, Lithuania and Poland (OJ 2016 L 35, p. 12) in so far as the gmina (commune) of Czyże, the remaining part of the gmina of Zabłudów and the gmina of Hajnówka together with the city of Hajnówka are included in Part II of the Annex to Decision 2014/709/EU;

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its action.

1.

First plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality by reason of the failure to have regard for the requirement that the contested measures must be necessary for achieving the intended objectives, the failure to have regard for the requirement that the contested measures must be appropriate for achieving the intended objectives, and the failure to have regard for the requirement that those measures must be strictly proportionate.

2.

Second plea in law: failure to comply with essential formal requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13) and in the rules of procedure of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed.

3.

Third plea in law: failure to comply with the obligation to set out reasons for the contested decision.
Top