# C_2018190EN.01003201.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/32

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission

(Case T-178/18)

(2018/C 190/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Bailleux and B. Magarinos Rey, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the contested regulation [Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 of 12 December 2017 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate 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 2017 L 333, p. 10)], while maintaining its effects until its replacement within a reasonable period, and at the latest until 16 December 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested regulation [Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 of 12 December 2017 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate 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 2017 L 333, p. 10)], while maintaining its effects until its replacement within a reasonable period, and at the latest until 16 December 2021;

| — | 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 applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of a high level of protection of human health and of the environment. This plea is divided into two parts.






  — | First part, alleging infringement of the obligation to ensure a high level of protection of human health and of the environment at the stage of the scientific assessment of risk, in so far as the contested regulation is based on a scientific assessment of risks to health and the environment that does not meet the requirements of the precautionary principle. According to the applicant, insufficiencies arise in relation to identification, selection and weighting, the treatment method and the interpretation of the available data and scientific studies. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of a high level of protection of human health and of the environment. This plea is divided into two parts.

—

First part, alleging infringement of the obligation to ensure a high level of protection of human health and of the environment at the stage of the scientific assessment of risk, in so far as the contested regulation is based on a scientific assessment of risks to health and the environment that does not meet the requirements of the precautionary principle. According to the applicant, insufficiencies arise in relation to identification, selection and weighting, the treatment method and the interpretation of the available data and scientific studies.

| — | Second part, alleging infringement of the obligation to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment at the stage of policy assessment and risk management, in so far as the contested regulation fails to carry out a policy assessment and risk management that comply with the precautionary principle. The applicant submits, on the one hand, that the renewal of the approval occurred in circumstances in which significant deficiencies and uncertainties persist in relation to risk assessment, and, on the other hand, that the renewal is not accompanied by sufficient risk mitigation or risk reduction measures in the broad sense. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second part, alleging infringement of the obligation to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment at the stage of policy assessment and risk management, in so far as the contested regulation fails to carry out a policy assessment and risk management that comply with the precautionary principle. The applicant submits, on the one hand, that the renewal of the approval occurred in circumstances in which significant deficiencies and uncertainties persist in relation to risk assessment, and, on the other hand, that the renewal is not accompanied by sufficient risk mitigation or risk reduction measures in the broad sense.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and the principle of sound administration, in so far as the contested regulation contains an internal inconsistency. The applicant claims that the preamble and articles of that regulation suggest that glyphosate does not have any harmful effects on human or animal health or any unacceptable influence on the environment, whereas the specific provisions contained in Annex I to that regulation are underpinned by the existence of such effects. Such an internal inconsistency thus leaves the public uncertain as to whether or not glyphosate poses a risk to health or the environment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and the principle of sound administration, in so far as the contested regulation contains an internal inconsistency. The applicant claims that the preamble and articles of that regulation suggest that glyphosate does not have any harmful effects on human or animal health or any unacceptable influence on the environment, whereas the specific provisions contained in Annex I to that regulation are underpinned by the existence of such effects. Such an internal inconsistency thus leaves the public uncertain as to whether or not glyphosate poses a risk to health or the environment.

---