# C_2011194EN.01001901.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/19

---

Action brought on 4 May 2011 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission

(Case T-232/11)

2011/C 194/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the Commission’s Decision of 1 March 2011 (Ares(2011)223668) contrary to Regulation No 1367/2006/EC (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the Commission’s Decision of 1 March 2011 (Ares(2011)223668) contrary to Regulation No 1367/2006/EC (1);

1

| — | Annul the Commission’s Decision of 1 March 2011 (Ares(2011)223668); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s Decision of 1 March 2011 (Ares(2011)223668);

| — | Instruct the Commission to assess the substance of the request for internal review of 20 December 2010, within a period of time determined by the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

Instruct the Commission to assess the substance of the request for internal review of 20 December 2010, within a period of time determined by the Court;

| — | 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 two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant was under an obligation to carry out the internal review of Directive 2010/77/EU (2), as requested by the applicants, on the ground that the said directive is not of general application, as the defendant stated, but rather an act containing concrete and individual decisions based on individual applications of the producers concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant was under an obligation to carry out the internal review of Directive 2010/77/EU (2), as requested by the applicants, on the ground that the said directive is not of general application, as the defendant stated, but rather an act containing concrete and individual decisions based on individual applications of the producers concerned.

2

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Regulation No 1367/2006/EC as Directive 2010/77/EU contains several administrative acts concerning individual decisions on individual applications. In addition, since the said directive has not been adopted in Commission’s legislative capacity, access to justice concerning such directive should be guaranteed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to Regulation No 1367/2006/EC as Directive 2010/77/EU contains several administrative acts concerning individual decisions on individual applications. In addition, since the said directive has not been adopted in Commission’s legislative capacity, access to justice concerning such directive should be guaranteed.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)

1

(2)  Commission Directive 2010/77/EU of 10 November 2010 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the expiry dates for inclusion in Annex I of certain active substances (OJ 2010 L 293, p. 48)

2

---