# C_2012025EN.01003901.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/39

---

Appeal brought on 23 November 2011 by Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences, Dow AgroSciences Export, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica, SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-475/07: Dow AgroSciences Ltd and Others v Commission

(Case C-584/11 P)

(2012/C 25/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences, Dow AgroSciences Export, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica, SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat, K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-475/07; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-475/07; and

| — | Annul Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 (1) concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance; or |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 (1) concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance; or

| — | alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court; and

| — | Order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court). |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for annulment in respect of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the Appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the facts and of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellants' situation. That resulted in it making a number of errors in law, in particular:

| — | in failing to find that the Appellants were requested by the Rapporteur Member State and EFSA to submit further data to clarify the dossier, in accordance with Article 8(5) of Regulation 451/2000 (3); |
| --- | --- |

—

in failing to find that the Appellants were requested by the Rapporteur Member State and EFSA to submit further data to clarify the dossier, in accordance with Article 8(5) of Regulation 451/2000 (3);

| — | in failing to find that the Commission did not follow the proper course of the regulatory procedure as prescribed in the Council Decision 1999/468 (4) and in holding that the Commission did not breach Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in failing to find that the Commission did not follow the proper course of the regulatory procedure as prescribed in the Council Decision 1999/468 (4) and in holding that the Commission did not breach Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468; and

| — | in failing to find that the Commission assessed trifluralin against criteria outside the scope of Directive 91/414, for which there is no basis in the relevant legal framework, and therefore acted ultra vires. |
| --- | --- |

—

in failing to find that the Commission assessed trifluralin against criteria outside the scope of Directive 91/414, for which there is no basis in the relevant legal framework, and therefore acted ultra vires.

For these reasons the Appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-475/07 should be set aside and the Commission Decision 2007/629/EC should be annulled.

---

(1)  OJ L 255, p. 42

(2)  OJ L 230, p. 1

(3)  OJ L 55, p. 25

(4)  OJ L 184 p. 23

---