—

annul Commission Decision Ares(2023)8214217 of 1 December 2023, in which the Commission refused the applicant's request for an internal review of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/918, (1) in so far as it postpones the expiry of the approval period for S-Metolachlor;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (2) for erroneously determining that the factual precondition that the approval appears likely to expire before a decision is taken on renewal has been met

When account is taken of the stage reached in the process of renewing the approval of the active substance, the defendant should not have assumed, when adopting Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/918 and reviewing that measure, that a decision on the renewal of the approval for the substance S-Metolachlor could not be taken before that date.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for erroneously determining that the factual precondition that the reasons for the expiry of the approval before renewal are beyond the control of the applicant producer has been met

The applicant producer also contributed to the delayed conclusion of the review procedure for the approval of the active substance through the delayed submission of the supplementary dossier and of incomplete information that did not allow for a final risk assessment.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 17of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with the aim of ensuring a high level of protection and the precautionary principle on account of a misinterpretation of the provision as meaning that the provision does not confer any discretion and that there an extension must be granted even where there are indications of unacceptable or harmful effects

An interpretation of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 according to which that provision does not confer on the Commission any discretion within the scope of which the Commission may and must take into account risks and hazards for the environment and health in refusing an extension is also incompatible with the primary aim of ensuring a high level of protection, the precautionary principle and the legislative scheme of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with the aim of ensuring a high level of protection and the precautionary principle on account of the ongoing nature of the overall extension

In any event, systematic extensions over several years, which ultimately have the character of an ongoing extension of an expired approval, are incompatible with the aim of protection and the precautionary principle.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, since the extension was for too long a period

The extension period set out in extending Regulation (EU) 2023/918 exceeds the period necessary to conclude the procedure.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union