—

Annul, in their entirety, Commission Implementing Decisions (EU) No 2024/2066 (OJ L 2024/2066), (1) (EU) No 2024/2079 (OJ L 2024/2079) (2) and (EU) No 2024/2078; (3)

—

Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2024/2067, (4) in so far as the applicants’ products are concerned;

—

Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ legal costs and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with the present application for annulment.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), respectively in their capacity as risk manager and risk assessor, failed to accomplish their mandates under Articles 8(1) and 9(1) of Regulation No 2065/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 November 2003, (5) which is to assess whether the applicants’ products and their intended use present risks to human health.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that EFSA and the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in their risk assessment of the applicants’ products, thus vitiating the contested acts. Instead of taking into account the results of the studies conducted by the applicants using chemical-specific data, which consistently demonstrate that the applicants’ products do not present a risk to human health, EFSA confined its assessment to a mere comparison with a generic, non-chemical specific threshold. The present plea consists of three limbs:

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 9(1) of Regulation No 2065/2003 by failing to carry out a full risk management assessment. Apart from relying on the erroneous findings of EFSA, the Commission also failed to take into account other legitimate factors, such as the health effects of the unavoidable return to traditional smoking.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the principle of proportionality when it adopted the contested acts.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts lack a valid legal basis, as Regulation No 2065/2003 violates the principle of non-discrimination, which in turn results in the Commission violating the principle of non-discrimination when adopting the contested acts. There are two limbs to this plea:

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the EFSA violated the applicants’ right to be heard.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the obligation to provide adequate reasoning and the principle of sound administration. This plea also has two limbs, as follows: