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 62017TN0621

    Case T-621/17: Action brought on 14 September 2017 — Taminco and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain/EFSA

    IO C 374, 6.11.2017, p. 46–47 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    6.11.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 374/46

    Action brought on 14 September 2017 — Taminco and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain/EFSA

    (Case T-621/17)

    (2017/C 374/69)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: Taminco BVBA (Gent, Belgium), Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claim that the Court should:

    —

    Annul the decision of the European Food Safety Authority of 18 July 2017, notified to the applicants on 20 July 2017, on the assessment of the confidentiality claims made in relation to the application for renewal of the approval process for Thiram as an active substance;

    —

    order the defendant to bear the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging the absence of a legal basis for publication.

    —

    The applicants maintain that publication would be ultra vires given that there is no legal basis upon which the defendant could rely to justify publication, be it under Regulation 1107/2009, Regulation 178/2002 or Commission Implementing Regulation No 844/2012.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted ultra vires in its proposed classification of Thiram since the European Chemicals Agency is the only authority legally responsible for classification or reclassification of substances, as set out in Regulation 1272/2008, and the defendant lacks powers in this regard.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached fundamental rights of the defence by failing to guarantee the applicants a full, proper and effective opportunity to submit comments on a proposed reclassification of its substance.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 by deciding to publish the information which the applicants sought to have sanitized, which might undermine their commercial interests.
    Top