EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/082/90
Case T-30/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Denka International v Commission
Case T-30/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Denka International v Commission
Case T-30/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Denka International v Commission
OJ C 82, 14.4.2007, p. 41–42
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
14.4.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 82/41 |
Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Denka International v Commission
(Case T-30/07)
(2007/C 82/90)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Denka International BV (Barneveld, The Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
annulment of Article 2(b) and Annex II of Commission Directive 2006/92/EC; and |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings, as well as interests thereof. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/92/EC (1), of 9 November 2006, amending Annexes to Council Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC as regards maximum residue levels for dichlorvos (hereinafter the ‘the MRL Directive ’or ‘the contested measure’) and in particular its Article 2(b) and Annex II thereof.
The applicant claims that these provisions modify the maximum residue level for the substance at stake from the previously applicable 2 mg/kg to a new threshold value of 0.01 mg/kg based on an underlying assessment of the applicant's dossier conducted under the related assessment of Directive 91/414/EEC (hereinafter, ‘PPPD’) that is procedurally, scientifically and legally flawed.
Procedurally, the applicant submits that the contested measure was adopted in violation of the procedural safeguards set out in Article 8 of Regulation 451/2000 and the auditum alteram partem principle or principle to a fair hearing, while it also infringes the duty to state reasons (Article 235 EC). In addition, the applicant claims that through the adoption of the contested measure the Commission misused its powers, as it achieved the same objective as a decision of non-inclusion without having recourse to such decision.
From a substantive legal standpoint, the contested measure is allegedly based on a manifest error of assessment and violates, according to the applicant (i) Article 4(1)(f) of Directive 91/414/EEC, (ii) Article 5 of the MRL Directive, as well as (iii) fundamental principles of Community law, namely (a) legitimate expectations and legal certainty, (b) Article 211 EC and the principle of sound administration, and (c) the principle of proportionality.
(1) Commission Directive 2006/92/EC of 9 November 2006 amending annexes to Council Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC as regards maximum levels for captan, dichlorvos, ethion and folpet (OJ, L 311, p. 31).