# C_2015007EN.01004001.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/40

---

Action brought on 16 October 2014 — PAN Europe and Unaapi v Commission

(Case T-729/14)

(2015/C 007/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium); and Unione nazionale associazioni apicoltori italiani (Unaapi) (Castel San Pietro Terme, Italy) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of 5 August 2014, Ares(2014)2589479, notified to the applicants’ representative on 6 August 2014 (the contested decision) in response to the applicants’ request of 10 January 2013 under Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (1) (MRLs Regulation) to lower the Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for the active substance imidacloprid for honey, pollen and royal jelly; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 5 August 2014, Ares(2014)2589479, notified to the applicants’ representative on 6 August 2014 (the contested decision) in response to the applicants’ request of 10 January 2013 under Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (1) (MRLs Regulation) to lower the Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for the active substance imidacloprid for honey, pollen and royal jelly; and

1

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested decision the Commission acted not in conformity with the MRLs Regulation, in particular with Article 3 and/or in combination with Article 14(1) and (2)(a), (c) and (d) of the MLRs Regulation, and thus acted illegally.

| — | The applicants argue that the MRLs Regulation prescribes that animal health should be taken into account by the Commission when deciding on applications under Article 7 of the MRLs Regulation to set or modify an MRL. The Commission thus unlawfully decided to not grant the applicants’ request of the lowering of MRLs for imidacloprid. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicants argue that the MRLs Regulation prescribes that animal health should be taken into account by the Commission when deciding on applications under Article 7 of the MRLs Regulation to set or modify an MRL. The Commission thus unlawfully decided to not grant the applicants’ request of the lowering of MRLs for imidacloprid.

| — | The applicants also submit that according to the definition of an MRL in Article 3(2)(d) of the MRLs Regulation, MRLs are to be based on ‘the lowest consumer exposure necessary to protect vulnerable consumers’ and on ‘good agricultural practice’ (GAP). From the Articles 3(2) and 4(1) second paragraph and from Article 14 (2) (a) and (d) derives that the Commission should have taken into account, when taking the contested decision, the scientific and technical knowledge available on the effects of imidacloprid on honeybees and honeybee colonies. It also derives from these provisions — and in particular from Article 14(2)(d) of the MRLs Regulation — that the Commission unlawfully did not take into account in the contested decision the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 (2), as a decision ‘to modify the uses of plant protection products’. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicants also submit that according to the definition of an MRL in Article 3(2)(d) of the MRLs Regulation, MRLs are to be based on ‘the lowest consumer exposure necessary to protect vulnerable consumers’ and on ‘good agricultural practice’ (GAP). From the Articles 3(2) and 4(1) second paragraph and from Article 14 (2) (a) and (d) derives that the Commission should have taken into account, when taking the contested decision, the scientific and technical knowledge available on the effects of imidacloprid on honeybees and honeybee colonies. It also derives from these provisions — and in particular from Article 14(2)(d) of the MRLs Regulation — that the Commission unlawfully did not take into account in the contested decision the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 (2), as a decision ‘to modify the uses of plant protection products’.

2

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC, OJ L 70, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances, OJ L 139, p. 12.

2

---