Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environmental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-236/04)

(2004/C 217/52)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 2004 by European Environmental Bureau, Brussels, Belguim and Stichting Natuur en Millieu, Utrecht, The Netherlands, represented by Mr P. van den Biesen and Mr B. Arentz, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision the Commission decided not to amended Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) so as to include ‘Atrazine’ among the active substances listed there. Article 4 of Directive 91/414 states that only plant protection products containing substances listed in Annex I may be authorised by Member States. By refusing to include Atrazine in Annex I the Commission decided not to allow further use of plant protection products containing this substance.

The applicants do not challenge this aspect of the decision but rather certain transitional provisions which allow until 30 June 2007 and subject to conditions aimed at minimising risk certain limited uses of products containing Atrazine. In the preamble to its decision the Commission justified these transitional measures through the current absence of efficient alternatives and the need to allow time for their development.

In support of their application the applicants submit that the contested provisions violate Directive 91/414. Article 8 of this directive provides that Member States may continue to authorise, for a 12-year period, substances which had already been on the market two years after the notification of the directive. Atrazine is such a substance. However, if in the meantime such substances have not been included in Annex I, then according to the applicants there is no legal basis in Directive 91/414 for allowing continued use after the expiry of the 12-year transitional period. The applicants thus submit that by the contested provisions the Commission created a new basis for a continued authorisation of Atrazine, even though it had no power to do so under Directive 91/414.

The applicants also claim that the Commission violated Directive 92/43 (3), by not including in the contested decision further restrictions related to the Special Areas of conservation, more specifically the Natura 2000 network of article 3 of Directive 92/43.

(1)  OJ L 78 16.3.2004, p. 53.

(2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, Official Journal L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1-32.

(3)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Official Journal L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50.