Action brought on 26 February 2009 — United Phosphorus v Commission

(Case T-95/09)

2009/C 102/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Phosphorus (Warringthon, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application, the applicant seeks the annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision 2008/902/EC of 7 November 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (notified under document number C(2008) 6281) (1). The contested measures will be effective as of 7 May 2009.

The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its claims.

First, the applicant claims that the contested decision contains manifest errors of appraisal. In the applicant’s opinion there is no sufficient scientific justification for the conclusions contained in the contested decision and that the Commission failed to take account of all available scientific evidence in violation of Article 5 of Directive 91/414 (2) and of Article 11(2) of Regulation 1490/2002 (3).

Second, the applicant contends that the Commission has infringed essential procedural requirements, i.e. Article 11 of Regulation No 1490/2002, as its alleged conflicting and contradictory behaviour denied to the applicant the right to withdraw the support of a substance in return for an extended phase-out period pending the resubmission of a dossier. Moreover, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to adopt the contested decision within applicable procedural deadlines and therefore infringed Article 11(4) of Regulation No 1490/2002.

Third, the applicant claims that the Commission has infringed fundamental principles of the community law such as principle of legitimate expectations, principle to fair hearing and the applicant’s right to defence as well as principle of proportionality as stated in Article 5 EC as, in the applicant’s opinion, the Commission could have extended the applicable deadlines in order to give EFSA more time to review the information and data submitted by the applicant. It further submits that the Commission failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons to justify its disagreement with the assessment of RMS and EFSA and therefore infringed its obligations under Article 253 EC.

(1)  OJ 2008 L 326, p. 35

(2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1)

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 of 14 August 2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 (OJ 2002 L 224, p. 23)