Action brought on 8 November 2007 — Union Nationale de l'Apiculture Française and Others v Commission

(Case T-403/07)

(2008/C 8/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Union Nationale de l'Apiculture Française (Paris, France), Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV (Soltau, Germany), Unione Nazionale Associazioni Apicoltori Italiani (Castel San Pietro Terme, Italy) and Asociación Galega de Apicultura (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) (represented by: B. Fau, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicants are seeking the annulment of Commission Directive 2007/52/EC of 16 August 2007, amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant products on the market, to include ethoprophos, pirimiphos-methyl and fipronil as active substances (1).

In support of their action for annulment, the applicants are putting forward three pleas.

First of all, they submit that the contested directive was adopted in breach of the procedural rules which, the applicants claim, the Commission was required to comply with. In the applicants' submission, even if the Commission may have been authorised by the Council to adopt, by means of a directive, the implementing measures necessary to apply Directive 91/414/EEC, it does not have the authority to amend that latter directive, in particular with regard to the obligations on the Member States. The applicants submit that the contested directive is not a mere implementing directive but a directive amending Directive 91/414/EEC and, as such, should have been adopted pursuant to the procedure requiring prior consultation of the European Parliament. In the absence of such consultation, it is vitiated by a procedural defect.

In addition, the applicants allege that, under the cloak of amendments to the national authorisation procedures for the placing of plant products on the market, the contested directive in fact infringes the uniform rules of assessment laid down by the basic directive 91/414/EEC with regard to the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I thereto.

(1)  OJ L 214, p. 3.