# C_2023045EN.01001701.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/17

---

Action brought on 31 October 2022 — SBM Développement v Commission

(Case T-667/22)

(2023/C 45/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SBM Développement SAS (Ecully, France) (represented by: B. Arash and H. Lindström, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the Commission’s Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1388 of 23 June 2022 on the unresolved objections regarding the terms and conditions of the authorisation of the biocidal product Pat’Appât Souricide Canadien Foudroyant referred by France and Sweden in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2022, L 208, p. 7); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1388 of 23 June 2022 on the unresolved objections regarding the terms and conditions of the authorisation of the biocidal product Pat’Appât Souricide Canadien Foudroyant referred by France and Sweden in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2022, L 208, p. 7);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of rule of law relating to the application of Article 48 and infringement of Articles 1(1) and 32 of Regulation (EU) 528/2012, (the ‘BPR’). (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of rule of law relating to the application of Article 48 and infringement of Articles 1(1) and 32 of Regulation (EU) 528/2012, (the ‘BPR’). (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 33, 35 and 36 of the BPR. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 33, 35 and 36 of the BPR.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties — principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties — principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 19 of the BPR and manifest error in assessment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 19 of the BPR and manifest error in assessment.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging exceedance of power and infringement of rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties — principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality and Article 16 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging exceedance of power and infringement of rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties — principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality and Article 16 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, OJ 2012, L 167, p. 1.

---