This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0445
Case T-445/11: Action brought on 12 August 2011 — Charron Inox and Almet v Commission
Case T-445/11: Action brought on 12 August 2011 — Charron Inox and Almet v Commission
Case T-445/11: Action brought on 12 August 2011 — Charron Inox and Almet v Commission
OJ C 290, 1.10.2011, 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)
1.10.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 290/18 |
Action brought on 12 August 2011 — Charron Inox and Almet v Commission
(Case T-445/11)
2011/C 290/26
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Charron Inox (Marseille, France) and Almet (Satolas-et-Bonce, France) (represented by: P.-O. Koubi-Flotte, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
— |
first, annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 of 27 June 2011; |
— |
in the alternative, acknowledge the fault of the Commission which did not provide for a sufficient period of time between the publication of Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 of 27 June 2011 and its entry into force, and award the following sums in damages to the applicant companies:
|
— |
in the further alternative, acknowledge the no-fault liability of the Commission which did not provide for a sufficient period of time between the publication of Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 of 27 June 2011 and its entry into force, and award the following sums in damages to the applicant companies:
|
— |
in any case, order the European Commission to pay the costs and the sum of EUR 10 000 as a contribution to the applicant companies’ defence costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
1. |
First plea, alleging serious inadequacies in the findings of the Commission before adoption of its decision such as to call into question the reliability of the facts established. |
2. |
Second plea, alleging the failure to respect the principle of legitimate expectations, in so far as the immediate entry into force of the contested regulation meant that the applicants could not adapt their practices. |