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 62019TN0561

    Case T-561/19: Action brought on 13 August 2019 — Lípidos Santiga v Commission

    OJ C 328, 30.9.2019, p. 73–74 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    30.9.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 328/73

    Action brought on 13 August 2019 — Lípidos Santiga v Commission

    (Case T-561/19)

    (2019/C 328/81)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Lípidos Santiga, SA (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: P. Muñiz Fernández, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Article 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 of 13 March 2019, supplementing Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the determination of high indirect land-use change-risk feedstock for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high carbon stock is observed and the certification of low indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels and its Annex;

    —

    order the Commission to bear the costs of the 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 global approach of the defendant, as a result of which palm oil qualifies as a high ILUC-risk feedstock is not proportionate.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in deciding that palm oil regardless of its origin is a high ILUC-risk feedstock.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the criteria for the classification of palm oil as a high ILUC-risk feedstock are discriminatory.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to conduct the necessary impact assessment prior to the adoption of the contested Regulation.

    5.

    Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state the reasons underlying the design of the formula used for deciding that palm oil is a high ILUC-risk feedstock.
    Top