Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62017TN0764

Case T-764/17: Action brought on 22 November 2017 – Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo v Commission

OJ C 134, 16.4.2018, p. 21–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

16.4.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/21

Action brought on 22 November 2017 – Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo v Commission

(Case T-764/17)

(2018/C 134/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo (Vigo, Spain) (representative: J. Costas Alonso, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

Annul the corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004) (corrected version in OJ L 226, 25.6.2004), published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 243, 21 September 2017;

—

Annul the corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004) (corrected version in OJ L 226, 25.6.2004), published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 243, 21 September 2017.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant contends that:

1.

It is surprising that the Commission has implicitly consented to the divergent application of the import rules for products of animal origin by Member States in well-defined cases, such as containers of frozen fishery products from China, all of which has a negative impact on fair competition between Member States.

2.

The main problem has been identified with respect to the import of products of animal origin and the requirement of the so-called ‘double listing’ of vessels which supply third-state establishments.

3.

A food business operator who imports products of animal origin from outside the European Union may only import fishery products from a third country if the third county in question, from where the products are dispatched, and the establishment from which the product is sent and in which the product has been obtained or prepared, are both listed.
Top