Case T‑12/17

Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung

v

European Commission

(Consumer protection — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 — Implementing Regulation extending the approval period of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Request for internal review — Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 — Measure of individual scope — Aarhus Convention)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber), 27 September 2018

International agreements — European Union Agreements — Convention on access to information, participation of the public in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus Convention) — Effects — Primacy over secondary legislation of the European Union — Interpretation of secondary law having regard to international agreements concluded by the EU — Obligation of conforming interpretation — Limits

International agreements — European Union Agreements — Convention on access to information, participation of the public in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus Convention) — Effects — Primacy over secondary legislation of the European Union — Examination of the legality of an act of secondary EU law having regard to the provisions of that convention — Conditions

Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action brought against a decision refusing to conduct an internal review of an administrative act under environmental law — Action to prevent an unlawful act of a Union institution or body from recurring in the future — Interest in bringing proceedings retained — Admissibility

An applicant retains an interest in seeking annulment of an act of an EU institution in order to prevent its alleged unlawfulness from recurring in the future. However, that interest in bringing proceedings can exist only if the alleged unlawfulness is liable to recur in the future independently of the circumstances which have given rise to the action brought by the applicant. This is the case where, regarding an action brought against a decision refusing to conduct an internal review of an administrative act under environmental law, the alleged unlawfulness is based on an interpretation of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) of that regulation, that the Commission is highly likely to reiterate if there is a further request. (see paras 28, 29)

In an action for annulment, the jurisdiction of the EU Courts is limited to reviewing the legality of the contested measure and the Court may not, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, issue directions to EU institutions. This is also the case in respect of actions brought against a decision refusing to conduct an internal review of an administrative act under environmental law. By giving the party making the request the right to institute proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, Article 12 of Regulation No 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies relates only to the decision which the Commission adopted in response to the request for internal review. Although it is inherent in a request for internal review of an administrative act that the party requesting the review is challenging the lawfulness or merits of the measure, that does not mean that the applicant is entitled, in the course of its action for annulment of the refusal to conduct a review, to put forward arguments directly challenging the lawfulness or merits of the measure. (see paras 33, 35)

An implementing regulation extending the approval of an active substance under Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, such as Implementing Regulation 2016/1056 of 29 June 2016 amending Implementing Regulation No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval period of the active substance ‘glyphosate’, must be regarded as being a measure of general scope and, therefore, does not constitute an administrative act within the meaning of Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies. The object and content of the measure provided for in the first paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009 do not merely confer on the applicant for renewal of the approval of the active substance protection against the risk that the renewal procedure in question might be delayed for reasons beyond the control of that applicant. An implementing regulation adopted on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009 extends the approval of the active substance in question for a certain period. That measure therefore has the same consequences as an implementing regulation approving such a substance for the first time under Article 13(2) of that regulation or a regulation renewing approval under Article 20 of that regulation. (see paras 57, 58, 65)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 85)