# C_2007020EN.01003101.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/31

---

Action brought on 15 December 2006 — Vischim v Commission

(Case T-380/06)

(2007/C 20/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vischim Srl. (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Defendant(s):

Form of order sought

| — | Partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/76/EC, in particular Article 2, paragraph 2 thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/76/EC, in particular Article 2, paragraph 2 thereof;

| — | order the defendant to comply with its obligations under Community law and provide for accurate, reasonable and legally acceptable prospective time limits; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to comply with its obligations under Community law and provide for accurate, reasonable and legally acceptable prospective time limits; and

| — | order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/76/EC (1), of 22 September 2006, and in particular its Article 2, paragraph 2, insofar as the amended specification of the active substance Chlorothalonil listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC (2) concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (hereinafter, the ‘PPPD’) has not provided for reasonable time limits in line with those given to other active substances under the current review and instead provides for retroactive application of its provisions.

1

2

The applicant claims that the Commission violated its legal rights and legitimate expectations as a notifier and main data submitter of Chlorothalonil within the meaning of the PPPD and its implementing regulations, since no reasonable period was granted before the amended specification of the active substance was included in Annex I during which Member States and the applicant could prepare themselves to meet new requirements. In that sense, the applicant submits that, instead of allowing for an appropriate time period for its Chlorothalonil-based product registrations to be properly assessed for re-registration purposes in Member States, the contested measure entered into force on 23 September 2006 and only prescribed retroactive application of its provisions as of 1 September 2006 by reference to situations which already had produced legal effects in the period up to 31 August 2006. Moreover, the applicant submits that the contested measure is not in conformity with the requirements established by the PPPD and that it lacks sufficient statement of reasons in terms of Article 253 EC. Finally, the applicant claims that the contested provision also discriminates between the situation of the applicant and other notifiers in the review process of existing active substances without objective justification.

---

(1)  Commission Directive 2006/76/EC, of 22 September 2006, amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the specification of the active substance chrothalonil; OJ L 263, p. 9

1

(2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC, of July 1991, concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market; OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1

2

---