# C_2016059EN.01002002.xml

| 15.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/20

---

Action brought on 22 October 2015 — PAN Europe e.a. v Commission

(Case T-600/15)

(2016/C 059/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium), Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee Life) (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium), Unione nazionale associazioni apicoltori italiani (Unaapi) (Castel San Pietro Terme, Italy) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer, A. van den Biesen, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/1295 (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/1295 (1); and

o

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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted in breach of Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (2) and Annex I and Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 when adopting the contested regulation and approving the putting on the market of sulfoxaflor.






  — | The Commission acted in breach of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and/or did not apply correctly the requirements regarding the approval of active substances as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted in breach of Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (2) and Annex I and Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 when adopting the contested regulation and approving the putting on the market of sulfoxaflor.

o

2

o

—

The Commission acted in breach of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and/or did not apply correctly the requirements regarding the approval of active substances as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009;

o

o

| — | The Commission also acted in breach of Article 4 in combination with Article 6(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and of point 1.1 and 2.2 of Annex II to the Regulation and/or did not apply correctly the requirements regarding the approval of active substances as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009; and |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission also acted in breach of Article 4 in combination with Article 6(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and of point 1.1 and 2.2 of Annex II to the Regulation and/or did not apply correctly the requirements regarding the approval of active substances as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009; and

o

o

| — | The Commission acted in breach of Article 4 and Article 6(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and/or did not apply correctly the requirements regarding the approval of active substances as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission acted in breach of Article 4 and Article 6(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and/or did not apply correctly the requirements regarding the approval of active substances as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

o

o

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation breaches beekeepers’ right to property and their right to conduct a business as laid down in the Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation breaches beekeepers’ right to property and their right to conduct a business as laid down in the Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3).

3

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted in breach of the principle of good administration, consistency of decision-making and the duty of care, with the adoption of the contested regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted in breach of the principle of good administration, consistency of decision-making and the duty of care, with the adoption of the contested regulation.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/1295 of 27 July 2015 approving the active substance sulfoxaflor, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ L 199, p. 8).

1

o

o

o

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ L 309, p. 1).

2

o

(3)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000, C 326, p. 1).

3

---