# C_2021471EN.01005301.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/53

---

Action brought on 20 September 2021 — TestBioTech v Commission

(Case T-606/21)

(2021/C 471/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 8 July 2021, refusing to revoke or to amend the defendant’s implementing decision (EU) 2021/66 (1), by which Monsanto Europe SA has been permitted, under the GM Regulation (2), to market genetically modified soybean MON 87751 x MON 87701 x MON 87708 x MON 89788 and its sub-combinations in the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 8 July 2021, refusing to revoke or to amend the defendant’s implementing decision (EU) 2021/66 (1), by which Monsanto Europe SA has been permitted, under the GM Regulation (2), to market genetically modified soybean MON 87751 x MON 87701 x MON 87708 x MON 89788 and its sub-combinations in the EU;

| — | order any other measure deemed appropriate; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order any other measure deemed appropriate; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential impact of gene stacking on gene expression in combination with herbicide applications and/or failed to require an adequate assessment under real-world conditions of repeated and/or high application of the two herbicides to which the modified soybean expresses tolerance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential impact of gene stacking on gene expression in combination with herbicide applications and/or failed to require an adequate assessment under real-world conditions of repeated and/or high application of the two herbicides to which the modified soybean expresses tolerance.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential for toxicity, immunogenicity and/or allergenicity in the modified soybean as a result of synergistic effects between the proteins it is genetically modified to express, naturally occurring protease inhibitors in soybeans, exposure to herbicide and/or herbicide residue in the harvest and/or failed to require animal feeding trials of the stack to be conducted. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential for toxicity, immunogenicity and/or allergenicity in the modified soybean as a result of synergistic effects between the proteins it is genetically modified to express, naturally occurring protease inhibitors in soybeans, exposure to herbicide and/or herbicide residue in the harvest and/or failed to require animal feeding trials of the stack to be conducted.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 26, p. 44.

(2)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 1829/2003 of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).

---