Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 December 2025 – Maud Tea & Seed v Commission
(Case C‑272/25 P)
( Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Plant protection products – Active substances clothianidin and thiamethoxam – Determination of maximum residue levels for the relevant active substances in or on certain products – Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 – Conditions of admissibility of the action – Direct concern – Evidence )
1.      Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the facts or evidence have been distorted – Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence – Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion – Requirement that the distortion be obvious from the documents in the file
(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))
(see paragraphs 17–21, 35)
2.      Judicial proceedings – Proof – Documentary evidence – Sworn statement – Probative value – Assessment by the EU judicature – Criteria
(see paragraphs 22–25)
3.      Judicial proceedings – Admissibility of actions – Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged
(Art. 263 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 33, 34)
4.      Appeal – Grounds – Ground of appeal directed against a ground included for the sake of completeness – Ground of appeal ineffective – Rejection
(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))
(see paragraphs 36–38, 49)
5.      Fundamental rights – Right to effective judicial protection – Limits – Compliance with the conditions governing the admissibility of an action
(Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 263 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)
(see paragraphs 39, 40)
6.      Appeal – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions
(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 117)
(see paragraphs 45–48)
Operative part
1.
The appeal is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
2.
Maud Tea & Seed Co. Ltd shall bear its own costs.