This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018TN0437
Case T-437/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission
Case T-437/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission
Case T-437/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission
OJ C 364, 8.10.2018, p. 15–16
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
8.10.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 364/15 |
Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission
(Case T-437/18)
(2018/C 364/16)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
declare that the applicant’s action for damages relating to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat at zero (OJ L 196/13 of 19 July 2013) to be admissible; |
|
— |
declare the Commission to be liable with respect to the applicant for the payment of the principal sum of EUR 3 238 000, including: |
|
— |
EUR 2 848 000 equivalent to uncollected refunds in relation to sales carried out between 19 July and 31 December 2013; |
|
— |
EUR 390 000 of refunds relating to losses stemming from the failure to achieve 3 550 tonnes of additional sales to PMOs over the course of the same period; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the principal sum of EUR 3 238 000; |
|
— |
reassessed by applying compensatory interest, starting from 20 September 2017 and continuing up to the date of delivery of the judgment, at the annual rate of inflation determined, for the period in question, by Eurostat (Statistical Office of the European Union) in the Member State where those companies are established; |
|
— |
increased by default interest, to be calculated as from the date of delivery of the present judgment and until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its principal refinancing operations, plus two percentage points; |
|
— |
authorise the applicant to amend its application and its claims in the event that the Commission adopts an implementing regulation replacing Regulation No 689/2013 before the end of the written phase of the proceedings in the present action; |
|
— |
order to the Commission to pay the costs of the present action. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law corresponding to the three basic conditions for an action for damages, which are cumulatively fulfilled in the present case, namely the existence of a harmful event corresponding to the unlawfulness of the conduct complained of, of damage and of a causal link between the harmful event and the damage.
Firstly, the applicant considers that the adoption by the Commission of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat at zero (OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13), annulled by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 20 September 2017, Tilly-Sabco v Commission (C-183/16 P, EU:C:2017:704), constitutes a sufficient infringement of EU law to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious infringement.
Secondly, it considers that the Commission, by unlawfully adopting a measure writing down the amount of the refunds on the sales of frozen chickens in certain countries outside the EU, committed a sufficiently serious infringement constituting a harmful event which resulted in actual and certain damage to it. That damage consists, according to the applicant, in the fact that it did not benefit from refunds until 31 December 2013.
Thirdly, the applicant company claims that it is justified in requesting compensation for the loss suffered relating to the unlawful cancellation of the refunds between 19 July 2013 and 31 December 2013. The Commission’s wrongful conduct was thus the decisive cause of the damage which it allegedly suffered and therefore, there is a direct and immediate link between that wrongful conduct and that damage.