Case T-380/06: Action brought on 15 December 2006 — Vischim v Commission
Date: 2007-01-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), marketing standard, plant health legislation, plant health product, testing

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/31

Moreover, the applicants contend that the Commission breached
Article 253 EC as the contested decision does not provide any
statement of reasons for imposing an additional amount of
EUR 2.04 million on the applicants Aquatis France and Simplex
Amaturen + Fittings.

Finally, the applicants allege that, by imposing a separate fine
upon Aquatis France and Simplex Amaturen + Fittings in addi-
tion to the fine already imposed on each of their predecessors
and current parent companies, the Commission breached the
principle ‘non bis in idem’ according to which no one can be
condemned twice for the same offence.

(1) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines

in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3)

Action brought on 15 December 2006 — Vischim v
Commission

(Case T-380/06)

(2007/C 20/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vischim Srl. (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu,
K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/76/EC, in

particular Article 2, paragraph 2 thereof;

— order the defendant to comply with its obligations under
Community law and provide for accurate, reasonable and
legally acceptable prospective time limits; and

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

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annul-
ment of Commission Directive 2006/76/EC (1), of 22 September
2006, and in particular its Article 2, paragraph 2, insofar as the
amended specification of the active substance Chlorothalonil
listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC (2) concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (hereinafter,
the ‘PPPD’) has not provided for reasonable time limits in line
with those given to other active substances under the current
review and instead provides for retroactive application of its
provisions.

The applicant claims that the Commission violated its legal
rights and legitimate expectations as a notifier and main data
submitter of Chlorothalonil within the meaning of the PPPD
and its implementing regulations, since no reasonable period
was granted before the amended specification of
the active
substance was included in Annex I during which Member States
and the applicant could prepare themselves to meet new
requirements. In that sense, the applicant submits that, instead
of allowing for an appropriate time period for its Chlorotha-
lonil-based product registrations to be properly assessed for re-
registration purposes in Member States, the contested measure
entered into force on 23 September 2006 and only prescribed
retroactive application of its provisions as of 1 September 2006
by reference to situations which already had produced legal
effects in the period up to 31 August 2006. Moreover, the appli-
cant submits that the contested measure is not in conformity
with the requirements established by the PPPD and that it lacks
sufficient statement of reasons in terms of Article 253 EC.
Finally, the applicant claims that the contested provision also
discriminates between the situation of the applicant and other
notifiers in the review process of existing active substances
without objective justification.

(1) Commission Directive 2006/76/EC, of 22 September 2006,
amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the specification
of the active substance chrothalonil; OJ L 263, p. 9

(2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC, of July 1991, concerning the placing
of plant protection products on the market; OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1

Action brought on 19 December 2006 — Icuna.com v
Parliament

(Case T-383/06)

(2007/C 20/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Icuna.com SCRL (Braîne-le-Château, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: J. Windey and P. de Bandt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul

the decision of

the European Parliament of 1
December 2006, accepting the tender of the firm MOSTRA
and rejecting the applicant's tender within the framework of
the call for tenders EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/2003;