Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62018TN0720

    Case T-720/18: Action brought on 10 December 2018 — AMVAC Netherlands v EFSA

    OJ C 65, 18.2.2019, p. 40–41 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    10/12/2018
    Date lodged:
    10/12/2018
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    English
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment, Application for interim measures
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    18.2.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 65/40

    Action brought on 10 December 2018 — AMVAC Netherlands v EFSA

    (Case T-720/18)

    (2019/C 65/52)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: AMVAC Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu, M. Grunchard and S. Englebert, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the EFSA decision of 1 October 2018, notified to the applicant on 2 October 2018, on the assessment of the confidentiality claims made in relation to the application for renewal of the approval process for Ethoprophos as an active substance;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging ultra vires

    —

    The applicant submits that the documents to be published as a result of the contested decision should be published in sanitised form only because the defendant has undertaken an activity (proposal of a classification of substance) which is expressly outside its remit of powers.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging the breach of fundamental principles of EU law

    —

    The applicant submits that the contested decision results from a procedure during which its rights of defence have not been respected.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 (1)

    —

    The applicant submits that part of the documents to be published as a result of the contested decision contains information that results from a flawed and partial assessment, and their publication would undermine the commercial interests of the applicant.

    (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1)

    Top