Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62015TN0296

Case T-296/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission

IO C 254, 3.8.2015, p. 19–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

3.8.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 254/19

Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission

(Case T-296/15)

(2015/C 254/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA (Mollet del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and C. Vila Gisbert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

disapply Regulation 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, in particular Article 24 thereof and point 4 of Annex II;

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015, with respect to the inclusion of Metalaxyl in the list of candidates for substitution contained in the Annex, and

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation has been adopted on an unlawful basis, as Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market infringes EU law because:

—

it breaches the precautionary principle by providing for a mechanism for the substitution of active substances on the basis of hypothetical risks that are not objectively substantiated;

—

by adversely affecting authorised substances, it breaches the principle of proportionality in that it goes beyond what is strictly necessary to achieve the objective of a high level of protection;

—

it distorts competition in the internal market by promoting the substitution of substances in the manner in which it does; and

—

it infringes the principle that reasons must be stated, so far as concerns the criterion of ‘a significant proportion of non-active isomers’ included in Annex II, point 4, of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Regulation (EU) No 2015/408 breaches the duty to state reasons by failing to justify the inclusion of Metalaxyl in the list of candidates for substitution on the basis of scientific and technical criteria, and it infringes the principle of non-discrimination in relation to Metalaxyl-M.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Regulation (EU) No 2015/408 breaches the principle of proportionality in relation to the objective of reducing risks to health and the environment promoted by the European Union.
Top