EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CN0405
Case C-405/12 P: Appeal brought on 27 August 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2012 in Case T-338/08 Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission
Case C-405/12 P: Appeal brought on 27 August 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2012 in Case T-338/08 Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission
Case C-405/12 P: Appeal brought on 27 August 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2012 in Case T-338/08 Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission
OJ C 9, 12.1.2013, p. 28–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
12.1.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 9/28 |
Appeal brought on 27 August 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2012 in Case T-338/08 Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission
(Case C-405/12 P)
2013/C 9/46
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver, J.-P. Keppenne, G. Valero Jordana, P. van Nuffel, Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings:
|
|
Stichting Natuur en Milieu, |
|
|
Pesticide Action Network Europe, |
|
|
Republic of Poland, |
|
|
Council of the European Union |
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 June 2012 in Case T-338/08; |
|
— |
rule on the substance of the case and dismiss the actions for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 1 July 2008; and |
|
— |
order the applicants to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in Case T-338/08 and in this appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant’s first plea coincides with the first plea in Case C-403/12 P.
By its second plea, the Commission submits, in the alternative, that the General Court misinterpreted the scope of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention (1) in the light of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of that convention, by concluding that the Commission did not act ‘in a legislative capacity’ within the meaning of the latter provision in adopting Regulation (EC) No 149/2008. (2)
(1) Aarhus Convention of 25 June 1998 on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, approved by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation of 29 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting maximum residue levels for products covered by Annex I thereto (OJ 2008 L 58, p. 1).