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 62017TN0476

    Case T-476/17: Action brought on 27 July 2017 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v Commission

    OJ C 357, 23.10.2017, p. 17–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    23.10.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 357/17

    Action brought on 27 July 2017 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v Commission

    (Case T-476/17)

    (2017/C 357/22)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    declare the application admissible and well-founded;

    —

    annul the contested Regulation (1);

    —

    order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment.

    —

    The applicant submits that: the defendant has committed a series of manifest errors of appraisal; the defendant has acted unreasonably by failing to give sufficient and due weight to factors which are specific to the unique case of diflubenzuron; the defendant has neither considered the timing of two regulatory procedures nor the available and new data; the defendant has failed to examine carefully and impartially all the individual elements and factors of this case.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging breach of right of defence: the defendant did not guarantee that the applicant was able to present properly and effectively its own views throughout the review process.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging adoption of the contested Regulation Ultra Vires: the defendant acted ultra vires since the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) is the only authority legally responsible for classification or re-classification of substances, as set out in Regulation 1272/2008 (2), and not the defendant.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging disproportion of the contested Regulation: the contested Regulation is disproportionate since the defendant had a choice of measures and the choice of adopting the contested Regulation restricting the use of diflubenzuron to non-edible crop causes disadvantages which are excessive in relation to the aims pursued.

    (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/855 of 18 May 2017 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance diflubenzuron (OJ 2017, L 128, p. 10).

    (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ 2008, L 353, p. 1).

    Top