EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021TN0302
Case T-302/21: Action brought on 27 May 2021 — ABOCA and Others v Commission
Case T-302/21: Action brought on 27 May 2021 — ABOCA and Others v Commission
Case T-302/21: Action brought on 27 May 2021 — ABOCA and Others v Commission
OJ C 289, 19.7.2021, p. 45–46
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
19.7.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 289/45 |
Action brought on 27 May 2021 — ABOCA and Others v Commission
(Case T-302/21)
(2021/C 289/61)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: ABOCA SpA Società Agricola (Sansepolcro, Italy), Coswell SpA (Funo di Argelato, Italy), Associação portuguesa de suplementos alimentares (Apard) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Kelly, Solicitor, K. Ewert, lawyer, D. Scannell, and C. Thomas, Barristers-at-law)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should annul the Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/468 of 18 March 2021 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives (1) (‘the contested Regulation’), in full or (alternatively) in part, and order the payment of their costs by the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to proceed under Regulation (EC) 1925/2006 (the ‘Additions Regulation’) is unlawful:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation is legally uncertain:
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the 2017 analysis of the European Food Safety Agency (‘EFSA’) is not capable of satisfying the legal test required under the Additions Regulation:
|