Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:T:2022:61
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: Belgium;United Kingdom

summary of that meeting, which states that it considered that ‘the risks and issues identified overrule[d] the impact of possible loss of the substance for resistance management and also any economic impact, also taking into account the alternatives still available’. 198 In those circumstances, it can be considered that the Commission did in fact take cognisance of the effects, positive and negative, economic and otherwise, likely to be induced by the non-renewal of the approval of thiram and that it took them into account in adopting the contested implementing regulation. 199 That conclusion cannot be called into question by the applicants’ argument that the examination of the benefits and costs, within the meaning of point 6.3.4 of the Communication on the precautionary principle, should include a thorough assessment of the most likely positive or negative consequences of the proposed non-renewal. 200 First, it is clear from the case-law cited in paragraph 181 above that the EU institutions enjoy, in implementing the measures to be taken for the protection of human health, a wide discretion as regards the definition of the objectives pursued and the choice of appropriate policy instruments. It should, moreover, be made clear that, because of the need to balance several objectives and principles, as well as the complexity of the implementation of the relevant criteria, judicial review must necessarily be limited to the question whether the EU institutions have committed a manifest error of assessment (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 December 2016, Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus, C‑444/15, EU:C:2016:978, paragraph 46). Nevertheless, in the present case, the applicants do not put forward any specific argument as to a possible error on the part of the Commission with regard to the examination of the benefits and costs, within the meaning of point 6.3.4 of the Communication on the precautionary principle. 201 Second, as noted in paragraph 196 above, it is not necessary that the effects, positive and negative, economic and otherwise, to which the proposed action, as well as the failure to act, may lead, be precisely estimated, if that is not possible or would require disproportionate effort. 202 Consequently, the applicants have no basis for claiming that the Commission misapplied the precautionary principle. (c) The alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment 203 It should be noted that the principle of equal treatment precludes comparable situations from being treated differently and different situations from being treated identically, unless such treatment is objectively justified (judgments of 25 October 2005, Groupe Danone v Commission, T‑38/02, EU:T:2005:367, paragraph 453, and of 12 April 2013, Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission, T‑31/07, not published, EU:T:2013:167, paragraph 310). 204 In the present case, by arguing that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment, the applicants rely on the assessment of the fungicidal compounds copper and methoxyfenozide, as well as on some of their possible similarities with thiram (see paragraph 163 above). However, it is incumbent on the applicants to specify and demonstrate which situation is comparable to another situation which has been treated differently. 205 By merely identifying common areas of concern with thiram and the lack of specific guidance for assessing naturally occurring metals such as copper, the applicants do not provide any demonstration to that effect. They do not provide any evidence that the analysis of the fungicidal compounds of copper and methoxyfenozide, their individual merits and the scientific background against which those substances were assessed are comparable in all those respects concerning thiram. 206 Therefore, the sixth plea in law must be rejected. 207 In view of all the above, the action must be dismissed in its entirety. V. Costs 208 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 209 Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in the present action, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission. 210 Since Taminco was unsuccessful in the proceedings for interim measures and the costs were reserved (see paragraph 40 above), it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in that procedure, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Taminco BVBA and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present action; 3. Orders Taminco to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the context of the proceedings for interim measures. da Silva Passos Valančius Reine Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 February 2022. E. Coulon M. van der Woude Registrar President Table of contents I. Legal framework A. Directive 91/414/EEC B. Regulation No 1107/2009 C. Implementing Regulation No 844/2012 II. Background to the dispute A. First approval of thiram at EU level B. Renewal of the approval of thiram at EU level III. Procedure and forms of order sought IV. Law A. The jurisdiction of the Court to deal with certain claims made in the application B. The application for annulment 1. Preliminary remarks (a) The scope of the Court’s review (b) The burden of proof 2. The fifth plea in law, alleging failure to respect the rights of the defence 3. The first plea in law, alleging a formal defect in that the Commission failed to take account of the withdrawal of the application for renewal of the approval of the use of thiram by foliar spraying 4. The second and third pleas in law, alleging, respectively, a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1107/2009 5. The fourth plea in law, alleging a proposed classification of thiram ultra vires 6. The sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the precautionary principle, the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment (a) The alleged violation of the principle of proportionality (b) The alleged breach of the precautionary principle (1) Preliminary remarks on the precautionary principle (2) The Commission’s obligation to examine the benefits and costs (3) The conduct by the Commission of the review of benefits and costs (c) The alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment V. Costs * Language of the case: English.