Corte di giustizia UE/2015

62013CJ0455_EN [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑455/13 P, C‑457/13 P and C‑460/13 P, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 8 August and 12 August 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Italy), [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Spain), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] française de la coopération fruitière, légumière and horticole ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), established in Paris ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), represented by M. Merola and C. Santacroce, avvocati, appellants in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑455/13 P, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by K. Skelly, A. Marcoulli and B. Schima, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], with an address for service in Luxembourg, appellant in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑457/13 P supported by: [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de Exportación de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA]., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Spain), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] del Oreto (CANSO) [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. V., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] «[OSCURATO:PERSONA]» (Carlet) [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. V., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SCJ (COPAL) [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. V., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AN S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA]., established in Navarra (Spain), Acopaex S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA]., established in Badajoz (Spain), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), established in Seville (Spain), Associació de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de les Terres de Lleida (ACTEL), established in Lleida (Spain), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (UNIO) [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Reus (Spain), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), established in Casseneuil ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Agrial SCA , established in Caen ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , established in Landerneau ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (UFM), established in Locminé ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), VOG [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Italy), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CO.PAD.OR.) Soc. agr. coop., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Italy), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] del [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., established in Rivarolo del Re (Italy), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ARP) Soc. agr. coop., established in Gariga di [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Italy), [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., established in Pievesestina di [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Italy), [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] di Savena (Italy), [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., established in Alfonsine (Italy), represented by M. Merola and C. Santacroce, avvocati, Unione [OSCURATO:PERSONA] tra le Organizzazioni di [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] e di Frutta in Guscio (Unaproa), established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented initially by S. Crisci and subsequently by G. Coppo, avvocati, interveners, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Varone, avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg, appellant in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑460/13 P, the other parties to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] degli Industriali delle [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Anicav), established in Naples (Italy), represented by S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and R. Oliveira, advogados, applicant at first instance in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑454/10, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de Fabricantes de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Agrucon), established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (AIIPA), established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Italy), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] degli Industriali delle [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Anicav), established in Naples, Campil-[OSCURATO:PERSONA]-Industrial do Campo do [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Pontével (Portugal), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Greece), FIT — Fomento da Indústria do [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SA, established in Marateca (Portugal), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Greece), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Greece), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, established in Nafplio (Greece), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] D. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] — Indústria de Transformação de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SA, established in Castanheira do Ribatejo (Portugal), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AVEE [OSCURATO:PERSONA] & [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Greece), Sociedade de Industrialização de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] — Sopragol SA, established in Mora (Portugal), Sugalidal — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de Alimentação SA, established in Benavente (Portugal), Sutol — [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Alcácer do Sal (Portugal), ZANAE [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Sindos (Greece), represented by S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and R. Oliveira, advogados, applicants at first instance in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑482/11, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (AIIPA), established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de Fabricantes de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Agrucon), established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], AIT — Associação dos Industriais de [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Lisbon (Portugal), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AVEE [OSCURATO:PERSONA] & [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] D. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, established in Nafplio, ZANAE [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Sindos, represented by S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and R. Oliveira, advogados, interveners at first instance in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑454/10, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] française de la coopération fruitière, légumière and horticole ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), established in Paris, VOG [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CO.PAD.OR.) Soc. agr. coop., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] del [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., established in Rivarolo del Re, ARP [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] di Savena, interveners at first instance in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑454/10 and T-482/11, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of A. Ó Caoimh, President of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], E. Jarašiūnas (Rapporteur) and C.G. Fernlund, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: N. Wahl, Registrar: I. Illéssy, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 4 June 2015, having decided, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1. By their appeals, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] française de la coopération fruitière, légumière et horticole ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] seek the annulment of the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in Anicav and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑454/10 and T‑482/11, EU:T:2013:282; ‘the judgment under appeal’), by which that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] annulled the second subparagraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(2a) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2007 L 350, p. 1), as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 687/2010 of 30 July 2010 (OJ 2010 L 199, p. 12; ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1580/2007’), and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(3) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1), in so far as those articles provide that the value of ‘non-genuine processing activities’ is to be included in the value of marketed production (VMP) of fruit and vegetables intended for processing, and also annulled [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 60(7) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011. Legal context 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA]) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1), as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 361/2008 of 14 April 2008 (OJ 2008 L 121, p. 1; ‘the “Single CMO” [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’) applies, pursuant to its [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(1)(i) and (j) respectively, to the fruit and vegetables sector and the processed fruit and vegetables sector. 3. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 361/2008 incorporated into [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1234/2007 certain provisions of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 1182/2007 of 26 September 2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, amending Directives 2001/112/EC and 2001/113/EC and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EEC) No 827/68, (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96, (EC) No 2826/2000, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 318/2006 and repealing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 2202/96 (OJ 2007 L 273, p. 1). It thus inserted into [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1234/2007 Section IVa, entitled ‘Aid in the fruit and vegetables sector’, of Chapter IV of Title I of Part II of that regulation, which includes Articles 103a to 103h. 4. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103b of the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: ‘1. Producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector may set up an operational fund. The fund shall be financed by: (a) financial contributions of members or of the producer organisation itself; (b) Community financial assistance which may be granted to producer organisations. 2. Operational funds shall be used only to finance operational programmes approved by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103g.’ 5. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103c of the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] provides: ‘1. Operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector shall have two or more of the objectives referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 122(c) or of the following objectives: … (b) improvement of product quality; (c) boosting products’ commercial value; (d) promotion of the products, whether in a fresh or processed form; …’ 6. According to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103d(2) of the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the Community financial assistance is to be capped at 4.1% of the VMP of each producer organisation, but may attain 4.6% of that value, provided that the amount in excess of 4.1% is used solely for crisis prevention and management measures. 7. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103f(2) of the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] provides that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are to establish a national strategy for sustainable operational programmes in the fruit and vegetable market and states the elements which that strategy must include. 8. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 122 of the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which concerns the producer organisations, provides: ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall recognise producer organisations, which: (a) are constituted by producers of one of the following sectors: … (iii) fruit and vegetables in respect of farmers growing one or more products of that sector and/or of such products solely intended for processing … (b) are formed on the initiative of the producers; (c) pursue a specific aim which may in particular, or as regards the fruit and vegetables sector shall, include one or more of the following objectives: (i) ensuring that production is planned and adjusted to demand, particularly in terms of quality and quantity (ii) concentration of supply and the placing on the market of the products produced by its members; (iii) optimising production costs and stabilising producer prices. …’ 9. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EEC) No 1580/2007, in its initial version, laid down detailed rules for the application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1182/2007. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(1) and (6) thereof provided in particular that the VMP of a producer organisation is to be calculated ‘on the basis of the production of members of producer organisations, for which the producer organisation is recognised’ and that the marketed production shall be invoiced at the ‘ex-producer organisation’ stage, where applicable, as product which is packaged, prepared, or has undergone first-stage processing. That regulation was amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 687/2010, recital 4 in the preamble to which states: ‘The calculation of the value of fruit and vegetables intended for processing has proven difficult. For control purposes and for the sake of simplification, it is appropriate to introduce a flat rate for the purposes of calculating the value of fruit and vegetables intended for processing, representing the value of the basic product, namely fruit and vegetables intended for processing, and activities which do not amount to genuine processing activities. Since the volumes of fruit and vegetables needed for the production of processed fruit and vegetables differ largely between groups of products, those differences should be reflected in the applicable flat rates.’ 10. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(2a) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1580/2007 provides: ‘The [VMP] shall not include the value of processed fruit and vegetables or any other product that is not a product of the fruit and vegetables sector. However, the [VMP] of fruit and vegetables intended for processing, which have been transformed into one of the processed fruit and vegetables listed in Part X of Annex I to [the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA]] or any other agricultural product referred to in this [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and described further in Annex VIa to this [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by either a producer organisation, an association of producer organisations or their members, who are producers or their cooperatives, or subsidiaries as referred to in paragraph 7 of this [OSCURATO:PERSONA], either by themselves or through outsourcing, shall be calculated as a flat rate in percentage applied to the invoiced value of those processed products. That flat rate shall be: (a) 53% for fruit juices; (b) 73% for concentrated juices; (c) 77% for tomato concentrate; (d) 62% for frozen fruit and vegetables; (e) 48% for canned fruit and vegetables; (f) 70% for canned mushrooms of the genus Agaricus ; (g) 81% for fruits provisionally preserved in brine; (h) 81% for dried fruits; (i) 27% for other processed fruit and vegetables; (j) 12% for processed aromatic herbs; (k) 41% for paprika powder.’ 11. Annex VIII to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1580/2007 contains the list of operations and expenditure not eligible under the operational programmes. 12. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1580/2007 has been repealed and replaced by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(3) of which repeats the text of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(2a) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1580/2007. 13. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 60(7) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011 provides: ‘Investments and actions related to the transformation of fruit and vegetables into processed fruit and vegetables may be eligible for support where such investments and actions pursue the objectives referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103c(1) of [the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA]], including those referred to in point (c) of the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 122 of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and provided that they are identified in the national strategy referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103f(2) of [the “Single CMO” [OSCURATO:PERSONA]].’ The proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the judgment under appeal 14. By application lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 30 September 2010, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] degli Industriali delle [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Anicav) brought the action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑454/10. By application lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 5 September 2011, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de Fabricantes de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Agrucon), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (AIIPA), Anicav, Campil-[OSCURATO:PERSONA]-Industrial do Campo do [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, FIT — Fomento da Indústria do [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SA, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] D. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] — Indústria de Transformação de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SA, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AVEE [OSCURATO:PERSONA] & [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, Sociedade de Industrialização de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] — Sopragol SA, Sugalidal — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de Alimentação SA, Sutol — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and ZANAE [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘Agrucon and Others’) brought the action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑482/11. 15. By five documents lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 13 and 17 January 2011, AIIPA, Agrucon, AIT – Associação dos Industriais de [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AVEE [OSCURATO:PERSONA] & [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] D. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE and ZANAE [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘AIIPA and Others’) sought leave to intervene in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑454/10 in support of the form of order sought by Anicav while, by four documents lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 24 January 2011, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], VOG [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CO.PAD.OR.) Soc. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] del [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., ARP [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop. and [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop. (‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others’) sought leave to intervene in the same case in support of the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 16. By two documents lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 19 December 2011, the interveners in support of the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]450/10 also sought leave to intervene in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑482/11. 17. By order of the President of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 22 October 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑454/10 and C‑482/11 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and of the judgment. 18. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑454/10, Anicav and AIIPA and Others sought the annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52 of and Annex VIII to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1580/2007, as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 687/2010. 19. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑482/11, Agrucon and Others sought the annulment of Articles 50(3) and 60(7) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011. 20. In both cases, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the interveners supporting it contended that the actions should be dismissed as inadmissible and, in any event, as unfounded. 21. In the judgment under appeal, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], firstly, rejected the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s pleas of an absolute bar on proceedings and seeking to have the actions brought in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑454/10 and T‑482/11 declared inadmissible on the basis of the applicants’ lack of standing to bring proceedings and, in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑454/10, Anicav’s lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings. 22. With regard to the standing to bring proceedings of the applicants at first instance, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] argued that those parties were not directly concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(2a) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1580/2007 nor by Articles 50(3) and 60(7) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011 (‘the contested provisions’), and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in paragraphs 36 to 46 of the judgment under appeal, considered that those provisions introduced a system under which producer organisations were eligible to receive aid covering processing activities also carried out by processors which were not members of a producer organisation, that those provisions did not leave any margin of discretion to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that the competitive position of the applicants and their members was the direct result of those provisions, so that they were directly concerned thereby. 23. Finding, moreover, that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1580/2007 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011 were regulatory acts within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] took the view that the contested provisions do not entail implementing measures, noting that although the payment of EU aid under those provisions was made through the national authorities, the fact remained that the instruments pursuant to which those authorities made the payments in question did not refer to the applicants at first instance and were neither addressed to nor served upon them, and that the applicable national rules did not necessarily provide for the adoption of acts capable of being challenged before the national courts. 24. Secondly, on the substance, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] upheld the first two pleas in law raised by the applicants at first instance, which it examined together, alleging, respectively, infringement of the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the principle of non-discrimination, and by which the applicants at first instance argued that, on the one hand, the possibility of granting aid under the operational programmes for processing activities was not provided for under that regulation and, on the other, the contested provisions were discriminatory since they restricted aid for processing activities to producer organisations and thus excluded processors which were not members of such organisations. 25. Accordingly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] held that the effects produced by the second subparagraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(2)a of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1580/2007 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(3) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011 on the relations between the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the producer organisations were to be maintained to the extent only that payments to producer organisations executed pursuant to those provisions since the entry into force of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 687/2010 and until delivery of this judgment were to be considered definitive. However, it did not maintain the effects of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 60(7) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011 on the ground that the funding relating to that provision was by its nature vitiated in its entirety by the illegality found. Procedure before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the forms of order sought by the parties 26. By orders of the President of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of 5 March and 2 July 2014, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de Exportación de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) S. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] del Oreto (CANSO) [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. V., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] «[OSCURATO:PERSONA]» (Carlet) [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. V., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SCJ (COPAL) [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. V., le [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AN S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA]., Acopaex S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA]., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Associació de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de les Terres de Lleida (ACTEL), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (UNIO) [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Agrial SCA, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (UFM), VOG [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CO.PAD.OR.) Soc. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] del [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ARP) Soc. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop. (‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others’) and Unione [OSCURATO:PERSONA] tra le Organizzazioni di [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] e di Frutta in Guscio (Unaproa) were granted leave to intervene in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑457/13 P in support of the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 27. After hearing the parties and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decided to join [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑455/13 P, C‑457/13 P and C‑460/13 P for the purposes of the oral procedure and the judgment, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 54 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice. 28. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], supported by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others and Unaproa, and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the appellants’) request the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to set aside the judgment under appeal and, with the exception of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], seek an order that the applicants at first instance be ordered to pay the costs. 29. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the parties intervening in support of it in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑457/13 P also request the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to give final ruling in the dispute by declaring that the actions in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑454/10 and T‑482/11 were inadmissible. In the alternative, were those actions to be held to be admissible, they request that the judgment under appeal be set aside and the action referred back to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for judgment and, in the further alternative, the setting aside of all or part of the judgment under appeal as regards the effects of the annulment pronounced. 30. Anicav, Agrucon and Others and AIIPA and Others (‘the other parties to the appeal’) contend that the appeal should be dismissed and seek an order that the appellants pay the costs. The appeal The standing of the applicants at first instance to bring proceedings Arguments of the parties 31. The appellants argue that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] erred in law by holding that the actions for annulment brought by the applicants at first instance were admissible under the fourth paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU. 32. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others submit, first of all, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] incorrectly interpreted the contested provisions, leading to an incorrect application of the fourth and sixth paragraphs of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU. The aid scheme in question and the alleged discrimination between the industrial processors of fruit and vegetables and the producer organisations active in processing activities does not follow from the contested provisions, but from the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] providing for the funding of the operations programmes of those organisations. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by their actions, the applicants at first instance seek in reality to challenge a legislative act without having the standing to do so, by circumventing the time-limit set in the sixth paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU. 33. Next, concerning whether the applicants at first instance are directly concerned by the contested provisions, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are of the opinion that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] wrongly confirmed that those provisions had directly caused a competitive disadvantage for the industrial processors of fruit and vegetables as against the producer organisations, while the provisions on the flat rates do not establish an aid scheme, but merely regulate a technical aspect of the pre-existing aid scheme, namely the method for calculation of the VMP of the producer organisations, and do not alter the legal situation of the processors. Similarly, the eligibility of investments and actions connected with the processing of fruit and vegetables is not a consequence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 60(7) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011, but follows from the basic choice to grant effective support to the producer organisations which the EU legislature made in the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], processors of fruit and vegetables fall entirely outside the scope of the contested provisions. 34. Furthermore, the appellants are of the opinion that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] erred in law in assimilating the position of the applicants at first instance to that of a competitor of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] aid recipient when competition law cannot be applied to the aid schemes which form the very essence of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Unaproa also note, in that regard, that the aid management rules in the fruit and vegetables sector by virtue of the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are not specific in nature but are of general application. 35. In the submission of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others and Unaproa, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was also incorrect in considering that the contested provisions left no margin of discretion to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. In fact, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the competent local authorities are not deprived of their discretion to calculate the VMP and the eligibility of investments and actions connected with the processing of fruit and vegetables for aid paid under an operational programme is not purely automatic, since such investments and actions must be identified in the national strategy. 36. Finally, according to the appellants, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] similarly erred in law in holding that the contested provisions do not contain any implementing measures, although those provisions, forming part of the general system implementing the rules on the operational funds and operations programmes of the producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector provided for in the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA], presuppose, for their implementation, that the national authorities approve the draft operational programmes notified by those producer organisations after having, inter alia, checked the provisional calculation of the VMP, that those organisations make an application for aid and provide supporting documents and that an act approving the amount of the aid is adopted. With regard, more particularly, to the eligibility of the investments and actions, they add that the selection thereof is entirely entrusted to the national authorities. 37. Since the participants in the hearing had been requested by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to focus their oral arguments on the main points to be drawn from the judgment in T & L Sugars and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (C‑456/13 P, EU:C:2015:284), delivered on 28 April 2015, the appellants submitted in particular that that judgment confirmed that the applicants at first instance, as industrial processors of fruit and vegetables, could not be regarded as being directly concerned by the contested provisions, since those provisions did not affect their legal position. According to them, it follows from that judgment that the competitive disadvantage alleged is, at most, only a factual consequence of those provisions and that the case-law in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] aid matters cannot be applied by analogy to aids under the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 38. The other parties to the appeal, first of all contesting the allegation that they are indirectly disputing the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA], state that they are not challenging the choice made by the legislature in that regulation to distinguish between the fresh fruit and vegetables sector and the processed fruit and vegetables sector and to allow the grant of aid only to the first of those sectors. However, they do contest the fact that the producer organisations receive EU aid for activities falling within the processed fruit and vegetables sector, in breach of the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 39. They argue, next, that the contested provisions do concern them directly since, by allowing the inclusion of activities known as ‘non-genuine processing activities’ in the VMP and the eligibility of the investments and action connected with the processing activities carried out by the producer organisations for aid, the legal position of the industrial processors defined by the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has been significantly altered, since they are placed at a competitive disadvantage. 40. They add that the rules on the flat rates and the eligibility of the investments and action connected with processing activities leave no margin of discretion to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], since the rules on those rates must be directly and fully followed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the possibility that the national authorities may decide not to include processing activities in the list of eligible expenditure is purely theoretical. 41. Finally, the other parties to the appeal state, with regard to the lack of implementing measures, that the national procedures are not implementing measures of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(2a) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1580/2007 or of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(3) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011, but mere administrative procedures followed by the national authorities which act as intermediary for the payment of the aid. The rules for calculation of the aid are, for their part, clearly set out in those regulations and, as such, are directly applicable, without the need for implementing measures. Similarly, the national strategies are not implementing measures of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 60(7) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011, but rather implementing measures of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103f(2) of the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Their aim is not to declare the investments and actions connected with processing activities eligible for EU aid. 42. In any event, the contested provisions, in their view, adversely affect their rights without needing or even permitting any implementing measures from the EU or the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to have that effect. The specific measures adopted in that context concern only the producer organisations and not the processors who cannot challenge them or even have knowledge of them. 43. At the hearing, the other parties to the appeal submitted in particular that the present case can be distinguished from that which gave rise to the judgment in T & L Sugars and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (C‑456/13 P, EU:C:2015:284) in that the present case concerns the same activity, using the same raw materials and producing the same products. Moreover, since, in their view, the contested provisions run counter to the ‘Single CMO’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA], there is no reason not to assess the fact of being directly concerned as in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] aid matters. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 44. By their actions, the applicants at first instance sought the annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(2a) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1580/2007 and of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(3) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011 which fix the flat rates applicable to various categories of fruit and vegetables enabling the calculation of the VMP of fruit and vegetables intended for processing which were processed by the producer organisations, which VMP is used to ascertain the amount of Community financial aid which may be granted to the producer organisations to fund the operational programmes approved by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. In addition, they sought the annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 60(7) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011 by virtue of which the investments and actions connected with the processing of fruit and vegetables into processed fruit and vegetables eligible for aid if they pursue the objectives of the operational programmes and have been identified in the national strategy. 45. In order to hold that the applicants at first instance were directly concerned, for the purpose of final limb of the fourth paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, by the contested provisions,, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], after having taken the view that those provisions did not leave any discretion to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], stated as follows: ‘40 As regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s argument that the competitive disadvantage stemming from the contested provisions for the applicants [at first instance] and their members is an indirect factual consequence, it must be pointed out that the effect on the competitive position of [those] applicants and of their members results directly from the specific flat rates laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(2)a of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1580/2007 and in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50(3) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011 and from the eligibility of investments and actions related to the transformation of fruit and vegetables for [OSCURATO:PERSONA] funding under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 60(7) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 543/2011, so that the contested provisions are of direct concern to the applicants and their members (see, to that effect, the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 11 July 1996 in Métropole télévision and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑528/93, T‑542/93, T‑543/93 and T‑546/93 [EU:T:1996:99], paragraph 64). 41 Moreover, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s interpretation of the meaning of direct concern would prevent any individual from seeking the annulment of an act whose object is the payment of aid to his competitors, since the associated disadvantage would be merely an indirect factual consequence. If, by virtue of settled case-law, it is established that the competitor of an aid recipient is directly concerned by a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision authorising a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay that aid where the intention of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to make such payment is not in doubt (see, to that effect, judgments of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 27 April 1995 in AAC and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑442/93  [EU:T:1995:80], paragraphs 45 and 46; ASPEC and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑435/93 [EU:T:1995:79], paragraphs 60 and 61; and Skibsværftsforeningen and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑266/94 [EU:T:1996:153], paragraph 49), a provision of EU law which provides for the grant of aid by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] itself is a fortiori likely to be of direct concern within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU to the competitor of the recipient of that aid.’ 46. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with the settled case-law of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, the condition that the contested decision must be of direct concern to a natural or legal person, as laid down in the fourth paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, requires that the contested EU measure must directly affect the legal situation of the individual and leave no discretion to its addressees responsible for implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from EU rules without the application of other intermediate rules (see judgments in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑404/96 P, EU:C:1998:196, paragraph 41; Front national v Parliament , C‑486/01 P, EU:C:2004:394, paragraph 34; [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Ente per le [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Ente per le [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑445/07 P and C‑455/07 P, EU:C:2009:529, paragraph 45, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑132/12 P, EU:C:2014:100, paragraph 68). 47. In the judgment in T & L Sugars and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (C‑456/13 P, EU:C:2015:284), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] held that undertakings engaged in the refining of imported cane sugar were not directly concerned by two [OSCURATO:PERSONA] regulations, of which they sought the annulment, which allowed EU producers to market a limited quantity of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose. In paragraph 37 of that judgment, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] noted that ‘since the appellants [in that case did] not have the status of producers of sugar and their legal situation [was] not directly affected by those regulations, those regulations [were] not of direct concern to them within the meaning of the final limb of the fourth paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU’. 48. The position of the applicants at first instance in the present case in relation to the contested provisions is analogous to that of the applicants in the case which gave rise to that judgment in relation to those two regulations. Since they are not producers of fruit and vegetables, but industrial processors of fruit and vegetables, to justify their standing to bring proceedings, they rely only on the fact that those provisions place them at a competitive disadvantage. 49. Such a fact cannot of itself allow the view to be taken that their legal position is affected by the contested provisions, adopted in the context of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that, accordingly, those provisions are of direct concern to them (see, to that effect, judgment in T & L Sugars and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑456/13 P, EU:C:2015:284, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited). 50. Consequently, by holding, in paragraphs 40 and 41 of the judgment under appeal, that the contested provisions were of direct concern to the applicants at first instance on the single ground that the provisions affected their competitive position, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] erred in law. 51. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], without it being necessary to examine the grounds of the judgment under appeal according to which the contested provisions do not leave any margin of discretion to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and do not include implementing measures, that judgment must be set aside in so far as it declared that the actions seeking annulment of those provisions were admissible. Admissibility of the actions at first instance 52. In accordance with the second sentence of the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 61 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], if the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is set aside the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice may give final judgment in the matter where the state of the proceedings so permits. 53. In the present case, it follows from the grounds set out in paragraphs 46 to 51 of this judgment that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was incorrect to declare that the actions at first instance seeking the annulment of the contested provisions were admissible. 54. Since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not rule on the action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑454/10 in so far as it sought the annulment of Annex VIII to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1580/2007 on the ground, set out in paragraph 35 of the judgment under appeal, that there was no need for that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to annul that annex if it annulled [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(2a) of that regulation and therefore did not rule on the plea that there was an absolute bar to proceeding also raised by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] against that application, it must be held that that plea is inadmissible, in any event, on the same grounds as those set out in paragraphs 46 and 50 of the present judgment. 55. It follows therefrom that the actions for annulment brought in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑454/10 and T‑482/11 must be dismissed as inadmissible. Costs 56. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, where the appeal is well founded and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] itself gives final judgment in the case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is to make a decision as to costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 138(1) of those Rules, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 57. In accordance with the second sentence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(4) of those Rules, where an intervener at first instance, who did not himself bring the appeal and who took part in the written or oral part of the procedure, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may decide that he is to bear his own costs. 58. Pursuant to the first subparagraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 140(1) of the Rules of Procedure, also applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(1) of those Rules, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and institutions which intervene in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. 59. In the present case, since the applicants at first instance have been unsuccessful and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others and Unaproa applied for costs, like the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑457/13 P, they must be ordered jointly to pay the costs incurred at first instance and/or in the present appeals by the latter parties. 60. AIT — Associação dos Industriais de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must be ordered to bear their own costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby: 1. Sets aside the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in Anicav and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑454/10 and T‑482/11, EU:T:2013:282) in that it declared admissible the actions brought in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑454/10 and T‑482/11 which seek the annulment of the second subparagraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(2a) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector, as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 687/2010 of 30 July 2010, and Articles 50(3) and 60(7) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors; 2. Dismisses the actions for annulment brought in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑454/10 and T‑482/11 as inadmissible; 3. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] degli Industriali delle [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Anicav), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de Fabricantes de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Agrucon), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (AIIPA), Campil-[OSCURATO:PERSONA]-Industrial do Campo do [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, FIT — Fomento da Indústria do [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SA, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] D. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] — Indústria de Transformação de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SA, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AVEE [OSCURATO:PERSONA] & [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE, Sociedade de Industrialização de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] — Sopragol SA, Sugalidal — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de Alimentação SA, Sutol — [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and ZANAE [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AE [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs incurred at first instance and/or in the appeals by [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] française de la coopération fruitière, légumière et horticole ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑457/13 P, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de Exportación de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] del Oreto (CANSO) [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. V., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] «[OSCURATO:PERSONA]» (Carlet) [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. V., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] SCJ (COPAL) [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. V., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AN S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA]., Acopaex S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA]., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Associació de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] de les Terres de Lleida (ACTEL), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (UNIO) [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Agrial SCA, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (UFM), VOG [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CO.PAD.OR.) Soc. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] del [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ARP) Soc. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop., [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. agr. coop. and Unione [OSCURATO:PERSONA] tra le Organizzazioni di [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] e di Frutta in Guscio (Unaproa); 4. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] AIT — Associação dos Industriais de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to bear their own costs.