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 62012TN0290

    Case T-290/12: Action brought on 29 June 2012 — Poland v Commission

    IO C 250, 18.8.2012, p. 18–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    18.8.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 250/18

    Action brought on 29 June 2012 — Poland v Commission

    (Case T-290/12)

    2012/C 250/34

    Language of the case: Polish

    Parties

    Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, Agents)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul Article 1(2), (3), (4), (6), (12) and (13), Annexes I and II, and Article 2(1) to (3), in conjunction with Article 3, of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2012 of 4 April 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ L 99 of 5.4.2012, p. 21);

    —

    Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law:

    —

    infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations;

    2.

    Second plea in law:

    —

    infringement of the principle of proportionality;

    3.

    Third plea in law:

    —

    breach of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of the inadequate reasons given for the contested provisions;

    4.

    Fourth plea in law:

    —

    infringement of the principles of solidarity and of loyal cooperation.
    Top