# C_2006096EN.01003101.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/31

---

Action brought on 27 February 2006 — Bayer CropScience a.o. v Commission

(Case T-75/06)

(2006/C 96/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bayer CropScience AG (Monheim am Rhein, Germany), Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Teko AE (Athens, Greece) and Aragonesas Agro SA (Madrid, Spain) [represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers]

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Order the annulment of Commission Decision 2005/864/EC (1), of 2 December 2005, concerning the non-inclusion of endosulfan in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing this substance; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the annulment of Commission Decision 2005/864/EC (1), of 2 December 2005, concerning the non-inclusion of endosulfan in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing this substance; and

1

| — | order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 91/414 (2) concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (known as the ‘plant protection products directive’ or ‘PPPD’) provides that Member States shall not authorise a product unless it is inscribed in Annex I of the Directive. The applicants, who are producers of endosulfan, request the annulment of the contested Decision, which refused to include endosulfan in that Annex.

2

In support of their application they first invoke a number of alleged procedural irregularities, namely: that the assessment of the contested Decision is based on criteria other than those specified in Directive 91/414, is incomplete and makes only selective use of the data submitted by the applicants; that new guidelines and criteria established by the Commission were applied retroactively after the applicant's notification and submission of data; and that the Commission refused to advise and consult with the applicants in relation to changing evaluation criteria and policy.

The applicants further allege that from a substantive law viewpoint the contested Decision violates Article 95(3) EC and Article 5(1) of Directive 91/414. They consider that the Commission failed to comply with its duty, under these provisions, to assess active substances and include them in Annex I in light of current scientific and technical knowledge and subject only to the requirements listed in article 5.

They further invoke the violation of a number of general principles of Community law, namely: the principle of proportionality, the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, the duty to perform a diligent and impartial assessment, the right of due process (right of defence and right to a fair hearing), the principle of excellence and independence of scientific advice, the principle of equal treatment, the principle that more general provisions must give way to a lex specialis and finally the principle of estoppel.

lex specialis

---

(1)  OJ L 317, 3/12/2005 p. 25

1

(2)  OJ L 230, 19/08/1991 p.1

2

---