—

the applicants submit that the Contested Regulation was adopted in violation of the Renewal Regulation (1141/2010) and Renewal Guidance (SANC0/10387/2010 rev. 8) insofar as the EFSA re-evaluated the hazard profile of FPS despite there being no change in the state of scientific knowledge and in the applicable legal framework;

—

the applicants submit that the Contested Regulation was adopted in violation of the CLP Regulation (1272/2008) and the Commission Guidance on Groundwater Metabolites (SANC0/221/2000 rev.10) insofar as the EFSA relied on its own hazard classification proposal for FPS to presume the toxicity of three groundwater metabolites;

—

the applicants submit that the Contested Regulation was adopted in violation of the EU rules on animal testing contained in the PPP Regulation (1107/2009) and the Animal Testing Directive (2010/63) insofar as the EFSA identified a data gap for additional genotoxicity studies without giving proper consideration to the overall weight of evidence and despite there being no demonstrated necessity to perform any further testing.

—

The applicants submit that the Contested Regulation was adopted in violation of the principle of legal certainty, the renewal applicant's rights of the defense as well as several provisions of EU law in that the EFSA performed the genotoxicity assessment for two FPS metabolites on the basis of a new and unapproved scientific opinion currently under review, which led the EFSA to identify an artificial data gap in the renewal dossier, which they were subsequently given no opportunity to address.

—

The applicants submit that the Contested Regulation was adopted in violation of the renewal applicant's rights of the defence and several provisions of EU law in that the Commission relied exclusively on the conclusions drawn by the EFSA to decide to ban FPS, without taking into account all available scientific information evidencing the safety of FPS, and in particular the additional studies spontaneously performed by the renewal applicant to address the alleged data gap and concerns identified by the EFSA, as well as the assessment of the Rapporteur Member State and the other Member States' comments during the renewal review.

—

The applicants submit that the Contested Regulation is plainly disproportionate to the overall safety profile of FPS and that the Commission could have addressed the alleged concerns underlying the Contested Regulation through less restrictive measures not entailing a ban on the use of FPS, e.g. through the use of the Confirmatory Data Procedure provided for in Article 6(f) of the PPP Regulation (1107/2009) or through risk mitigating measures decided at national level by the EU Member States.

—

The applicants submit that the Commission infringed the principle of non-discrimination in that the alleged concerns underlying the Contested Regulation have consistently been handled through less restrictive measures in the Commission's past decisional practice. However, the Commission has so far never relied on such concerns to justify an outright ban on the use of a substance.

—

The applicants submit that the Commission failed to properly handle the review process for FPS, which caused DuPont to invest considerable resources into the preparation of scientific dossiers that eventually proved entirely useless as the Commission unexpectedly revised its stance in relation to certain concerns. In addition, the applicants submit that the Contested Regulation undermines the competition policy objectives underlying the divestment of FPS, which the Commission itself imposed on Dow/DuPont to avoid the creation of a dominant position in the EEA market for cereal herbicides. This mishandling of the review process for FPS amounts to a violation of the Commission's duty of care, good administration principles and DuPont's legitimate expectations.