Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62009CN0069

    Case C-69/09 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2009 by Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl, Magan Italia Srl against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2008 in Case T-393/06 Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV and Others v Commission

    OJ C 82, 4.4.2009, p. 22–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    4.4.2009   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 82/22

    Appeal brought on 14 February 2009 by Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl, Magan Italia Srl against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2008 in Case T-393/06 Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV and Others v Commission

    (Case C-69/09 P)

    (2009/C 82/39)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Appellants: Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl, Magan Italia Srl (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu, advocaten)

    Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

    Form of order sought

    The appellants claim that the Court should, following an oral hearing:

    —

    set aside the Order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-393/06 and declare the Appellants' application for annulment admissible; and

    —

    annul the Contested Decision; or

    —

    alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance to rule on the Appellants' application for annulment; and

    —

    order the Commission to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the Court of First Instance).

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The Appellants submit that the CFI erred in law in rejecting their application for annulment of the decision of the European Commission, expressed in a letter dated 12 October 2006, not to include the active substance azinphos-methyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1) of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (the ‘Contested Decision’).

    In particular, the Appellants contend that the Court of First Instance erred in law in rejecting their application on grounds of admissibility. It wrongly held that the Contested Decision was not a challengeable act pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty.

    (1)  OJ L 230, p. 1.

    Top