Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2022:62
Date: 2022-02-09
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Plant health legislation
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Netherlands

Action brought on 23 May 2019 – AMVAC Netherlands v Commission (Case T-317/19) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: AMVAC Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu, M. Grunchard and S. Englebert, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019; 1 order the defendant to pay all the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted further to a manifest error of assessment. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation results from a procedure during which the applicant’s rights of defence were not respected. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the proportionality principle. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the precautionary principle. ____________ 1 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance ethoprophos, 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 2019 L 62, p. 7).