Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action against a Commission Decision concerning the non-inclusion of a substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414

(Arts 230 EC and 233, first para., EC; Council Directive 91/414, Arts 6 and 8(2))

2. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 91/414

(Council Directive 91/414, Art. 8(2) and Annex I)

3. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 91/414

(Council Directive 91/414, Art. 8(2) and Annex I)

4. Community law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Scope

5. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Discretion of the Community institutions – Scope – Judicial review – Limits

6. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 91/414

(Council Directive 91/414, Art. 5(1))

Summary

1. In an action for annulment of a decision concerning the non-inclusion of a substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414 and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance, the applicants’ interest in bringing proceedings is not diminished by the impossibility for the Commission to take a new decision on the basis of Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market in order to comply with an annulling judgment. Under the first paragraph of Article 233 EC, the Commission is required to take the necessary measures to comply with an annulling judgment. In the event of an annulment, with its attendant retroactive effects, the Commission would have to take a fresh decision on the basis of the notified dossier concerned by that annulment and adjudicate by reference to the date of notification. The fact that, since the adoption of the contested decision, there has been a change in the legislation on which it was based has no bearing, therefore, on the question whether it is appropriate for the applicants to challenge the procedure followed and the outcome obtained under the rules in force at the material time.

(see para. 63)

2. As is clear from recitals 5, 6 and 9 in the preamble thereto, Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market aims to remove barriers to intra-Community trade in those products, while maintaining a high level of protection of the environment and of human and animal health. In that context, if the Commission is to be able to pursue effectively the objective assigned to it, account being taken of the complex technical assessments which it must undertake, it must be recognised as enjoying a broad discretion. The power to postpone deadlines is akin to a discretion, which depends on the circumstances of the case.

However, the exercise of that discretion is not excluded from judicial review. According to settled case-law, in the context of such a review the Community judicature must verify whether the relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts admitted by the Commission have been accurately stated and whether there has been a manifest error of assessment or a misuse of powers.

In particular, where a party claims that the institution competent in the matter has made a manifest error of assessment, the Community judicature must examine whether that institution has examined, carefully and impartially, all the relevant facts of the individual case which support the conclusions reached.

(see paras 81-84)

3. In connection with a decision relating to the inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market of a substance covered by the procedure set out in Article 8(2) of that directive, the deferral must be granted if it is not impossible to derogate from the procedural time-limits laid down in the rules in question, and if the parties who notified the active substance were in a situation of force majeure which prevented them from complying with the procedural time-limits, a situation which might obtain if the impossibility of complying with those time-limits was attributable, at least in part, to contradictory behaviour on the part of the competent authorities. Political or practical considerations do not constitute a sufficient reason for refusing to postpone deadlines in a specific case, if such an extension is necessary to ensure a fair and equitable evaluation procedure.

(see paras 89, 91)

4. Respect for the rights of the defence is, in all proceedings initiated against a person which are liable to culminate in a measure adversely affecting that person, a fundamental principle of Community law which must be guaranteed even in the absence of any rules governing the proceedings in question. That principle requires that the addressees of decisions which significantly affect their interests be placed in a position in which they may effectively make known their views. An irregularity can, however, bring about the annulment of a decision only to the extent that it is such as to actually affect the rights of defence and therefore the content of the decision. The existence of a disagreement on substance as regards the inferences to be drawn from a particular study does not amount to evidence of a lack of opportunity to make their views known and cannot be classed as an infringement of the rights of defence.

(see paras 130-132, 203)

5. In matters concerning the common agricultural policy the Community institutions enjoy a broad discretion as regards the definition of the objectives to be pursued and the choice of the appropriate means of action. Accordingly, review by the Community judicature of the substance must be confined to determining whether the exercise of such discretion is vitiated by manifest error or by misuse of powers, or whether the Community institutions clearly exceeded the bounds of their discretion. Where a Community authority is required to make complex assessments in the performance of its duties, its discretion also applies, to some extent, to the establishment of the factual basis of its action. It follows that where the Community institutions are required to undertake a scientific risk assessment and to evaluate highly complex scientific and technical facts, judicial review of the way in which they do so must be limited. In such cases, the Community judicature is not entitled to substitute its assessment of the facts for that of the Community institutions, on which the Treaty confers sole responsibility for that duty. Instead, it must confine itself to ascertaining whether the exercise by the Community institutions of their discretion in that regard is vitiated by manifest error or by misuse of powers, or whether the Community institutions clearly exceeded the bounds of their discretion.

(see para. 141)

6. Within the context of judicial review of the application of the principle of proportionality, in view of the broad discretion which the Commission enjoys in adopting decisions relating to the inclusion of active substances in Annex I to Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, the lawfulness of a measure can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate in relation to the objective which it is intended to attain

As the aims of Directive 91/414 are, first, to remove barriers to intra-Community trade in plant protection products and to improve plant production and, second, to protect human and animal health and the environment, the decision not to include a substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414 is not disproportionate when it is based on the absence of sufficient information to show that there were no risks, such as those referred to in Article 5(1) of that directive. The objectives of protecting human and animal health and the environment militate against a deferral of the decision to include or not to include the active substance at issue in Annex I to Directive 91/414 being left to the discretion of the producers of that substance, and, in any event, it is possible for those producers to have the active substance re-examined by means of the procedure provided for in Article 6(2) of that directive.

(see paras 224-225, 228)