Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-257/07 France v Commission

(Case C-601/11 P)

2012/C 80/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, C. Candat, S. Menez and R. Loosli-Surrans, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The French Government raises four pleas in law in support of its application.

By its first plea in law, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons by failing to respond sufficiently (i) to the appellant’s complaints that the Commission had failed to take account of the scientific data available, in so far as the General Court mistakenly found that those complaints amounted to an allegation that the Commission had had no knowledge of such data, and (ii) to the French Government’s complaints relating to infringement of Article 24a of Regulation No 999/2001, in so far as the General Court found that those complaints effectively established that the contested measures were appropriate for the purpose of ensuring a high level of human health protection.

By its second plea in law, which is divided into three parts, the French Government submits that the General Court distorted the facts put before it. Thus, the appellant submits, first of all, that the General Court distorted the opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’) of 8 March 2007 and 24 January 2008 when it found that the Commission had been entitled, without manifest error of assessment, to infer from those opinions that the risk of transmissibility to humans of TSE other than BSE was extremely low (first part). By the second part, the appellant submits that the General Court distorted the opinions of EFSA of 17 May and 26 September 2005 when it found that the Commission had been entitled, without manifest error of assessment, to take the view that the evaluation of the reliability of the rapid tests that is included in those opinions was valid in relation to the use of those tests in controlling the release for human consumption of meat from ovine or caprine animals. Finally, by the third part, the French Government submits that the General Court distorted the facts put before it, by finding that all of the scientific evidence relied on by the Commission in order to justify the adoption of the contested measures of Regulation No 746/2008 constituted new evidence in relation to the earlier preventive measures.

By its third plea in law, the French Government submits that the General Court erred in the legal characterisation of the facts when it characterised the scientific evidence relied on by the Commission as new evidence capable of altering the perception of the risk or showing that that risk can be contained by measures that are less restrictive than existing measures.

By its fourth plea in law, which is in three parts, the appellant takes the view that the General Court erred in law in the application of the precautionary principle. In that context, the appellant submits, first of all, that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission had not infringed Article 24a of Regulation No 999/2001 since, according to the General Court, the Commission had complied with the obligation contained in Article 152(1) EC to ensure a high level of human health protection. By the second part of its plea, the French Government submits that the General Court erred in law in assuming that the scientific evidence relied on by the Commission in order to justify the adoption of Regulation No 746/2008 necessarily had to entail a change in the level of risk deemed acceptable. In the alternative, the French Government submits that the General Court erred in law in failing to ascertain whether, in determining the level of risk deemed acceptable, the Commission took into account the gravity and irreversibility of the adverse effects of TSEs on human health. Finally, by the third part, the French Government submits that the General Court erred in law in failing to take account of the fact that Regulation No 746/2008 does not replace the earlier preventive measures but supplements them with more flexible alternative measures.

(1)  OJ 2008 L 202, p. 11.