Action brought on 17 November 2006 - Republic of Hungary v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-310/06)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant(s): Republic of Hungary (represented by: J. Fazekas)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Assignment of the case to the Grand Chamber of the Court of First Instance pursuant to Articles 14(1) and 51(1) of its Rules of Procedure.

Annulment of the following provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1572/2006 of 18 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 824/2000 establishing procedures for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies and laying down methods of analysis for determining the quality of cereals ('the Regulation'):

Article 1(1) insofar as it refers to maize;

Article 1(3), amending Article 9(b) of Regulation No 824/2000, insofar as it refers to maize;

the value relating to the specific weight required for maize appearing in line E of the table given in point 1 of the annex, and

Table III in point 2 of the annex insofar as it refers to maize.

An order that the Commission of the European Communities pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Article 1 of Regulation No 1572/2006 and the annex thereto because it considers that they are unlawful.

It relies on the following pleas in support of its application:

The Commission has breached the legitimate expectations of the producers by introducing during the financial year a requirement relating to the specific weight of maize, and the principles of legal certainty and proportionality by allowing an inordinately short preparatory period between the date of publication and the date of entry into force and by failing to take account of the need for gradual adjustment.

The Commission did not have the authority to lay down the requirement relating to the specific weight of maize.

In the event that it is considered that the Commission was empowered to lay down that requirement, the applicant submits that the defendant has exceeded its powers, given that it significantly altered the intervention regime for maize in practice under the pretext of amending the qualitative parameters for intervention.

Even if it is considered that the Commission was empowered to lay down the requirement relating to the specific weight of maize, that institution made a manifest error of assessment, in that, by establishing a criterion for the average quality of maize, it did not take account of the fact that the maize produced in the Community is used mainly for animal fodder.

The Commission has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 253 EC to state the reasons on which legal acts are based.

The Commission has infringed the internal rules of the Management Committee for Cereals in not respecting the time-limit laid down by those rules.

____________