Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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

SL 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