# C_2011331EN.01002501.xml

| 12.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/25

---

Action brought on 5 September 2011 — Sepro Europe v Commission

(Case T-483/11)

2011/C 331/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sepro Europe Ltd (Harrogate, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | Annul Commission Decision 2011/328/EU (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision 2011/328/EU (1);

1

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

| — | Take such other or further measures as justice may require. |
| --- | --- |

—

Take such other or further measures as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of appraisal, as it erred as a matter of law in justifying Commission Decision 2011/328/EU on the grounds of the alleged concerns regarding (i) worker exposure and (ii) environmental exposure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of appraisal, as it erred as a matter of law in justifying Commission Decision 2011/328/EU on the grounds of the alleged concerns regarding (i) worker exposure and (ii) environmental exposure.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the due process and the right of defence, as well as the principle of sound administration, as it wrongly took into account the alleged concern regarding isomer ratio which was only identified as a critical concern for the first time during the resubmission and at a very late stage of the procedure. As a result, the applicant was not given an opportunity to address the issue. Moreover, the defendant failed to take into consideration the proposal from the applicant for amendment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the due process and the right of defence, as well as the principle of sound administration, as it wrongly took into account the alleged concern regarding isomer ratio which was only identified as a critical concern for the first time during the resubmission and at a very late stage of the procedure. As a result, the applicant was not given an opportunity to address the issue. Moreover, the defendant failed to take into consideration the proposal from the applicant for amendment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision 2011/328/EU is unlawful because it is disproportionate. Even if it were accepted that there are concerns which deserve further attention, the measure in question is disproportionate in the way it approaches the alleged worker exposure and environmental exposure concerns. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision 2011/328/EU is unlawful because it is disproportionate. Even if it were accepted that there are concerns which deserve further attention, the measure in question is disproportionate in the way it approaches the alleged worker exposure and environmental exposure concerns.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision 2011/328/EU is unlawful because it is inadequately reasoned, as the defendant failed to provide any evidence or reasoning to justify its disagreement with the amendment proposed by the applicant, thus affecting the calculation of estimated worker exposure levels, as well as with the use of high technology glasshouses. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision 2011/328/EU is unlawful because it is inadequately reasoned, as the defendant failed to provide any evidence or reasoning to justify its disagreement with the amendment proposed by the applicant, thus affecting the calculation of estimated worker exposure levels, as well as with the use of high technology glasshouses.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Decision of 1 June 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of flurprimidol in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (notified under document C(2011) 3733) (OJ 2011 L 153, p. 192)

1

---