# C_2021471EN.01005201.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/52

---

Action brought on 20 September 2021 — TestBioTech v Commission

(Case T-605/21)

(2021/C 471/74)

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) 2021/61 (1), by which Monsanto Europe SA has been permitted, under the GM Regulation (2), to market genetically modified maize MON 87427 x MON 87460 x MON 89034 x MIR162 x NK603 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) 2021/61 (1), by which Monsanto Europe SA has been permitted, under the GM Regulation (2), to market genetically modified maize MON 87427 x MON 87460 x MON 89034 x MIR162 x NK603 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 three 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 exposure to drought conditions and/or failed to require an adequate assessment under drought conditions to be conducted. |
| --- | --- |

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 exposure to drought conditions and/or failed to require an adequate assessment under drought conditions 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 impact of gene stacking on gene expression in combination with herbicide applications and/or failed to require an adequate assessment under conditions of repeated and/or high application of herbicide. |
| --- | --- |

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 impact of gene stacking on gene expression in combination with herbicide applications and/or failed to require an adequate assessment under conditions of repeated and/or high application of herbicide.

| 3. | Third 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 plant composition and agronomic characteristics in combination with exposure to drought conditions and herbicide applications. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third 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 plant composition and agronomic characteristics in combination with exposure to drought conditions and herbicide applications.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 26, p. 12.

(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).

---