Republic of Hungary v Commission of the European Communities (T-310/06)

Judgment of 15 Nov 2007

law://eu/cjeu/2006/t-310-06/para_164@2026-11-15

164Finally, in answer to questions asked by the Court, the Commission refers to a study which, it acknowledges, is not included in the file but which is annexed to its further observations lodged in connection with the interlocutory proceedings. That document not being one of those before the Court in the present action, the Court cannot evaluate its relevance. Moreover, the Commission has not made an express request for that document to be produced in evidence. Even if the Commissions reply must be interpreted as being such a request, it is to be borne in mind that, under Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure, the arguments of fact and law relied on, and the nature of any evidence offered, must as a rule be stated in the defence. In accordance with Article 48(1) of those Rules, the parties may offer further evidence in the reply or rejoinder, on condition that they give reasons for the delay in offering it, failing which the evidence will be rejected (Case T-84/92 Nielsen and Møller v ESC [1993] ECR II-949, paragraph 39; Case T-66/92 Herlitz v Commission [1994] ECR II-531, paragraph 41; and Case T-100/00 Campoli v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-71 and II-347, paragraph 19). What is more, it is to be stressed that the relevance of specific weight as a criterion of quality for maize was the crucial matter that was raised by the applicant at the stage of the application and that had earlier been raised by the applicant and other Member States when the draft regulation was prepared. Consequently, there being no reasons whatsoever given for the delay in offering that evidence, it would on any view be inadmissible.

Republic of Hungary v Commission of the European Communities (T-310/06)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections