This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TA0667
Case T-667/22: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2024 – SBM Développement v Commission (Biocidal products – Authorisation through mutual recognition – Biocidal product Pat’Appât Souricide Canadien Foudroyant – Commission decision on unresolved objections – Articles 35, 36 and 48 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 – Cancellation or amendment of marketing authorisations – Action for annulment – Direct concern – Individual concern – Admissibility – Conditions for granting an authorisation – Article 19(1) of Regulation No 528/2012 – Article 19(5) of Regulation No 528/2012 – Competence of the Commission – Concept of national authorisation – Concept of reference Member State – Manifest error of assessment – Proportionality)
Case T-667/22: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2024 – SBM Développement v Commission (Biocidal products – Authorisation through mutual recognition – Biocidal product Pat’Appât Souricide Canadien Foudroyant – Commission decision on unresolved objections – Articles 35, 36 and 48 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 – Cancellation or amendment of marketing authorisations – Action for annulment – Direct concern – Individual concern – Admissibility – Conditions for granting an authorisation – Article 19(1) of Regulation No 528/2012 – Article 19(5) of Regulation No 528/2012 – Competence of the Commission – Concept of national authorisation – Concept of reference Member State – Manifest error of assessment – Proportionality)
Case T-667/22: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2024 – SBM Développement v Commission (Biocidal products – Authorisation through mutual recognition – Biocidal product Pat’Appât Souricide Canadien Foudroyant – Commission decision on unresolved objections – Articles 35, 36 and 48 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 – Cancellation or amendment of marketing authorisations – Action for annulment – Direct concern – Individual concern – Admissibility – Conditions for granting an authorisation – Article 19(1) of Regulation No 528/2012 – Article 19(5) of Regulation No 528/2012 – Competence of the Commission – Concept of national authorisation – Concept of reference Member State – Manifest error of assessment – Proportionality)
OJ C, C/2024/4963, 19.8.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4963/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2024/4963 |
19.8.2024 |
Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2024 – SBM Développement v Commission
(Case T-667/22) (1)
(Biocidal products - Authorisation through mutual recognition - Biocidal product Pat’Appât Souricide Canadien Foudroyant - Commission decision on unresolved objections - Articles 35, 36 and 48 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Cancellation or amendment of marketing authorisations - Action for annulment - Direct concern - Individual concern - Admissibility - Conditions for granting an authorisation - Article 19(1) of Regulation No 528/2012 - Article 19(5) of Regulation No 528/2012 - Competence of the Commission - Concept of ‘national authorisation’ - Concept of ‘reference Member State’ - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)
(C/2024/4963)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: SBM Développement SAS (Écully, France) (represented by: B. Arash and H. Lindström, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Escobar Gómez and R. Lindenthal, acting as Agents)
Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and A. Laine, acting as Agents)
Re:
By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1388 of 23 June 2022 on unresolved objections regarding the terms and conditions of the authorisation of the biocidal product Pat’Appât Souricide Canadien Foudroyant referred by France and Sweden in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2022 L 208, p. 7).
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders SBM Développement SAS to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission; |
|
3. |
Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs. |
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4963/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)