Case T-312/06: Action brought on 17 November 2006 – FMC Chemical v EFSA
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Food Safety Authority, action for annulment (EU), administrative formalities, dangerous substance, exchange of information, indemnification, marketing standard, pesticide, plant health product, report

C 326/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

— order the defendant to compensate the applicants for the
damages incurred as a result of the contested measure, and
to hold at this stage by interlocutory statement that the
defendant is obliged to compensate the applicants for the
damages they incurred and to reserve the fixing of
the
amount of compensation either by agreement between the
parties or by the Court in the absence of such agreement;

Action brought on 17 November 2006– FMC Chemical v
EFSA

(Case T-312/06)

— order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses in these

(2006/C 326/139)

proceedings.

Language of the case: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

the active

The application at stake is made pursuant to Article 230 EC for
the annulment of the decision of the European Food Safety
Authority (‘EFSA’) of 28 July 2006, concluding on the evalua-
substance Carbofuran under Directive
tion of
91/414/EEC (1)
(‘The Plant Protection Products Directive’ or
‘PPPD’), in so far as it fails to include or to consider critical new
evidence on Carbofuran submitted by the applicants to the
designated Belgian Rapporteur Member State and to the extent
it introduces new data requirements based on the retroactive
application of new guidance documents, which the applicants
could not foresee, and for which it was scientifically not possible
to conduct and submit new studies in time.

Specifically, the applicants claim that the contested measure
represents the final procedural step in the administrative assess-
ment of the substance under Commission Regulation (EC) No
451/2000 of 28 February 2000 (2) laying down the detailed
rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of
the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of the PPPD, as
amended by Commission Regulation 1490/2002 (3) for which
the applicants submit they are the sole notifiers and main data
submitters.

The applicants hereby also raise a plea of
illegality against
Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002, which provides
for a mandatory involvement of EFSA in the review of active
substances covered by the second stage of the review, and by
requiring the EFSA to assess whether the substance in question
may be expected to meet the safety requirements of the PPPD
and be included in its Annex I. Precisely, the applicants contend
that the above-mentioned regulation, which entered into force
at a time when the applicants had completed their complete
dossiers, cannot retroactively apply to the ongoing Carbofuran
review and consequently the contested measure cannot serve as
a basis for a Commission proposal regarding the inclusion of
Carbofuran in Annex I of the PPPD.

Moreover, the applicants seek compensation for the damages
caused to them as a result of the defendant's conduct during the
Carbofuran evaluation process and in the adoption of
the
contested measure.

(1) OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2000 L 55, p. 25.
(3) OJ 2002 L 224, p. 23.

Parties

Applicant: FMC Chemical SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

— Declare the present application admissible and well founded;

— annul

the EFSA's Conclusion Report,

titled ‘Conclusion
regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of
the active substance Carbosuflan’;

— order the EFSA and/or the European Commission by way of
incidental request in accordance with Articles 63 and 64 of
the Court's Rules of Procedure, to produce the proposal
regarding the (non) inclusion of Carbosuflan in Annex I to
Directive 91/414/EEC it intends to present to the Standing
Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health for a vote
at its 22/24 November 2006 meeting, or any other meeting;

— declare the illegality and inapplicability vis-à-vis the appli-
cant and the review of their Carbosuflan dossiers of Article
20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002;

— order the defendant to compensate the applicants for the
damages incurred as a result of the contested measure, and
to hold at this stage by interlocutory statement that the
defendant is obliged to compensate the applicants for the
the
damages they incurred and to reserve the fixing of
amount of compensation either by agreement between the
parties or by the Court in the absence of such agreement;

— order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/67

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicant
are identical to those relied on in Case T-311/06, FMC Chemical
et Arysta Lifesciences v European Food Safety Authority.

The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicant
are identical to those relied on in Case T-311/06, FMC Chemical
et Arysta Lifesciences v European Food Safety Authority.

Action brought on 18 November 2006— Otsuka Chemical
v EFSA

Action brought on 17 November 2006 — Whirlpool
Europe v Council

(Case T-313/06)

(2006/C 326/140)

Language of the case: English

(Case T-314/06)

(2006/C 326/141)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Otsuka Chemical Co, Ltd (Osaka, Japan) (represented
by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu, lawyers)

Applicant: Whirlpool Europe Srl (Comerio, Italy) (represented by:
M. Bronckers and F. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Declare the present application admissible and well founded;

— annul

the EFSA's Conclusion Report,

titled ‘Conclusion
regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of
the active substance Benfuracarb’;

— order the EFSA and/or the European Commission by way of
incidental request in accordance with Articles 63 and 64 of
the Court's Rules of Procedure, to produce the proposal
regarding the (non) inclusion of Benfuracarb in Annex I to
Directive 91/414/EEC it intends to present to the Standing
Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health for a vote
at its 22/24 November 2006 meeting, or any other meeting;

— declare the illegality and inapplicability vis-à-vis the appli-
cants and the review of their Benfuracarb dossiers of Article
20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002;

— order the defendant to compensate the applicants for the
damages incurred as a result of the contested measure, and
to hold at this stage by interlocutory statement that the
defendant is obliged to compensate the applicants for the
damages they incurred and to reserve the fixing of
the
amount of compensation either by agreement between the
parties or by the Court in the absence of such agreement;

— order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

— Declare the definitive regulation annulled insofar as the defi-
the product concerned/like product does not
large-volume refrigerator-freezer units with at

nition of
include all
least two external doors placed side-by-side;

— order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a domestic appliance producer in Europe
of among others refrigerators, seeks the partial annulment of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006 of 25 August 2006
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting defini-
tively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain side-
by-side refrigerators originating in the Republic of Korea (1).

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Community institutions violated Article 253 EC by providing
inadequate and insufficient reasoning on the exclusion of three-
door side-by-side refrigerators from the issue of product scope,
especially in light of the circumstances of the case.

The applicant further submits that the Community institutions
violated the applicant's right to be heard with regard to the last-
minute exclusion of three-door side-by-side refrigerators from
the scope of the product concerned.