—

annul the Commission’s decision, dated 1 December 2023, rejecting the applicant’s request for internal review, filed under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), regarding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/918 (2) (‘the contested decision’), insofar as it extends the approval period of the active substance boscalid;

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) read in combination with the precautionary principle, Article 168(1) TFEU, Article 191(2) TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

Article 17 of Regulation 1107/2009 cannot be interpreted as obliging the Commission to extend an approval indefinitely, irrespective of the number and duration of previously granted extensions and irrespective of the risks such an extension may pose for human health or for the environment.

In the case of boscalid in particular, the Commission could not extend for so many years its approval considering that the application for renewal raised a large number of questions from the European Food Safety Authority and that numerous studies raise serious doubts as to the safety of boscalid for both human health and the environment.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, that Article 17 of Regulation 1107/2009 must be declared inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU because it is contrary to the precautionary principle, Articles 168 and 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter.

If the Court were to take the view that the contested decision (and Implementing Regulation 2023/918) are based on a sound reading of Article 17 of Regulation 1107/2009, this legislative provision should be set aside for the purpose of the present proceedings, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, because it would be contrary to the precautionary principle, Articles 168 and 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter. Accordingly, Article 17 of Regulation 1107/2009 should not be applied and could not serve as a proper legal justification for the contested decision, which should therefore be annulled.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, in the further alternative, that the Commission erred in considering that the explicit conditions under Article 17 of Regulation 1107/2009 were met.

The Commission erred in considering that the conditions for extension explicitly laid down in Article 17 of Regulation 1107/2009 were satisfied: