This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007TN0475
Case T-475/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission
Case T-475/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission
Case T-475/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission
OJ C 51, 23.2.2008, p. 54–55
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
23.2.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 51/54 |
Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission
(Case T-475/07)
(2008/C 51/99)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom), Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Makhteshim Agan International Coordination Center (Brussels, Belgium), Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos Ld.a (Funchal, Portugal), Finchimica SpA (Manerbio, Italy), Dow Agrosciences BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary), Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl (Milano, Italy), Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o. (Warszawa, Poland), Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA (Madrid, Spain), Dow AgroSciences s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic), Dow AgroSciences LLC (Indianapolis, United States), Dow AgroSciences GmbH (Stade, Germany), Dow AgroSciences Export SAS (Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences SAS (Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S (Lyngby-Taarbæk, Denmark), Makhteshim-Agan Poland sp. z o.o. (Warszawa, Poland), Makhteshim-Agan (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Makhteshim-Agan France SARL (Sevres, France), Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl (Bergamo, Italy), Alfa Agricultural Supplies SA (Halandri, Greece) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the contested decision. |
|
— |
Order the Commission to take such measures as are necessary to comply with the annulment of the contested decision in accordance with Article 233 EC, including, but not limited to, ordering it to request the Member State competent authorities to reinstate the relevant national trifluralin registrations withdrawn as a result of the contested decision, and extend any relevant deadlines as required to comply with the judgment of the Court. |
|
— |
Declare the illegality, and inapplicability to the applicants, of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC. |
|
— |
Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings, including interest at 8 %. |
|
— |
Take such other or further measures as justice may require. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Council Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1) provides that Member States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (2).
In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission failed to base its decision on the report from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and thereby misused its powers.
The applicants further contend that the contested decision contains manifest errors of appraisal in that the Commission:
|
— |
failed to take all the available scientific evidence into account as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 91/414; |
|
— |
failed to extend the relevant deadlines although the circumstances and criteria for the assessment of trifluralin changed during the review process; |
|
— |
did not have a scientific justification for its findings; |
|
— |
lacked competence to assess trifluralin under Regulation 850/2004 (3) and, in any event, erred in its assessment. |
Moreover, the applicants allege that the contested decision does not comply with the applicable legislative procedures and that the Commission and EFSA infringed Article 8(7) and (8) of Regulation 451/2000 (4) by not complying with the procedural deadlines, which according to the applicants amounts to a breach of an essential procedural requirement.
Finally, the applicants submit that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned in violation of Article 253 EC and that it infringes the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, non-retroactivity, the protection of the applicants' legitimate expectations and their right to be heard.
(1) 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) Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 7).
(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2000 L 55, p. 25).