EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62020TN0454

Case T-454/20: Action brought on 16 July 2020 — Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia v Commission

OJ C 287, 31.8.2020, p. 42–43 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

31.8.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/42


Action brought on 16 July 2020 — Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia v Commission

(Case T-454/20)

(2020/C 287/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia (Phnom Penh, Cambodia) (represented by: C. Ziegler and S. Monti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Commission’s Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/550 of 12 February 2020 amending Annexes II and IV to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the temporary withdrawal of the arrangements referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 in respect of certain products originating in the Kingdom of Cambodia in part, namely with regard to the temporary withdrawal of the GSP preferences for all customs codes that are affecting GMAC members, i.e. the HS codes mentioned in the table in Article 1 subparagraph 1 and all customs HS codes mentioned in the table in Article 1 subparagraph 2, except for HS code 1212 93;

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violates the principle of proportionality and the requirement of consistency between the Union’s policies and activities. The Commission allegedly failed to properly assess the proportionality of the partial temporary withdrawal of customs preferences for the Cambodian garments, footwear and travel goods sectors.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s procedural rights due to the Commission’s failure to provide adequate reasoning pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU, corresponding to a violation of the right to good administration.


Top