# C_2010161EN.01004602.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/46

---

Action brought on 13 April 2010 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v Commission

(Case T-164/10)

(2010/C 161/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Johnston, United States) (represented by: J. Temple Lang, Solicitor and T. Müller-Ibold, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | find that the Commission has failed to act in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, in having failed to submit to the Council a draft of the measures to be taken pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Council decision, and having failed to take all other measures that may, depending on development of the decision making procedure, be necessary to ensure that the decision referred to in Article 18 of the directive is adopter; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the Commission has failed to act in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, in having failed to submit to the Council a draft of the measures to be taken pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Council decision, and having failed to take all other measures that may, depending on development of the decision making procedure, be necessary to ensure that the decision referred to in Article 18 of the directive is adopter;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 2 May 2007, the applicant lodged its first application pursuant to Article 232 CE (1) claiming that the Commission had failed to act, in violation of Article 18 of Directive 2001/18/EC (2), to ensure the adoption of a decision concerning the applicant’s notification for the placing on the market of insect-resistant genetically modified maize 1507. On 21 January 2009, the Commission, under Article 5(2) of Decision 1999/468, submitted the proposal for a decision to the regulatory committee. In the framework of the proceedings before the Court, the parties agreed that, taking account of the submission of the proposal for a decision, the action became devoid of purpose and by the order of 4 September 2009 the Court decided that there was no need to adjudicate in Case T-139/07.

In the present action the applicant claims, pursuant to Article 265 TFUE, that the Commission has still failed to make a proposal concerning a placing on the market of insect-resistant genetically modified maize 1507 to the Council despite the request of the applicant. The applicant argues that the Commission has failed to submit a draft decision on the applicant’s notification to any of the six meetings of the Environment Council that have been held since regulatory committee issued “no opinion” on the proposal on 25 February 2009.

The applicant contends that under the procedure set out in the directive, the Commission is obliged to ensure that a decision on a notification is adopted and published within the period of time prescribed in the directive. The applicant furthermore submits that by failing to submit to the Council a draft of the measures to be taken the Commission failed to ensure that such a decision was adopted even though all requirements on the applicant and other parties under the directive had been completed in accordance with the directive.

The applicant moreover submits that the Commission has been called upon to define its position within the terms of Article 265 TFUE which the Commission has failed to do. In the applicant’s opinion, the Commission’s reasons for its failure to submit a draft decision to the Council are irrelevant and unjustified. The Commission’s failure to act has, according to the applicant, had adverse effects on its legal situation and had caused it to sustain specific, proven and quantifiable loses.

---

(1)  Case T-139/07, Pioneer Hi-Bred International v Commission, OJ 2007 C 155, p. 28

(2)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC — Commission Declaration, OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1

---