Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62019CN0400

Case C-400/19: Action brought on 23 May 2019 — European Commission v Hungary

OJ C 255, 29.7.2019, p. 25–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

29.7.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/25


Action brought on 23 May 2019 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-400/19)

(2019/C 255/34)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos, A. Lewis and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Declare that, by restricting the fixing of sale prices of agricultural and food products, having particular regard to Article 3(2)(u) of the a mezőgazdasági és élelmiszeripari termékek vonatkozásában a beszállítókkal szemben alkalmazott tisztességtelen forgalmazói magatartás tilalmáról szóló, 2009. évi XCV. törvény (Law XCV of 2009 prohibiting unfair trading practices by suppliers in respect of agricultural and food products), Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products; (1)

Order Hungary to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Law XCV of 2009 prohibiting unfair trading practices by suppliers in respect of agricultural and food products (‘the Tfmtv’) introduced sector-specific provisions in relation to the fixing of the retail prices of the products in question.

The Commission submits that Article 3(2)(u) of the Tfmtv does not refer to the characteristics of agricultural and food products, but solely to their selling arrangements, and must therefore be regarded as a provision relating to sales arrangements within the meaning of the Keck and Mithouard judgment (see judgment of 24 November 1993, Keck and Mithouard, Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91, EU:C:1993:905). In analysing the effects of that measure, it can be said to be a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU.

According to the Commission, Article 3(2)(u) of the Tfmtv does not in fact affect the sale of domestic and imported products in equal measure, and is neither an adequate nor proportionate measure with regard to any legitimate aim connected to it.


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).


Top