Case T-324/07: Action brought on 28 August 2007 — Plant and Others v Commission
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), coal, complaint to the Commission, discriminatory price, electrical energy

C 247/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

in which the complainants operated. Moreover,

The applicants claim that the Commission was wrong as a
matter of law to assess the question of price-discrimination on a
country-wide basis rather
than with reference to the local
the
market
applicants submit that the Commission was wrong in stating
that
the licensed private mines could only supply limited
amounts of coal and on a short term basis, taking into account
the size of the mining facilities and British Coal Corporation's
licensing policy. Finally, the applicants claim that the Commis-
sion was wrong to conclude that since the ECSC Treaty has
expired and that it no longer enjoys exclusive competence with
regards to infringements of the latter, a Commission decision
was no longer required before judicial protection was sought
before national courts.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants
are similar to those relied on in Case T-318/07 National Associa-
tion of Licensed Opencast Operators v Commission.

Action brought on 30 August 2007 — Cheminova and
Others v Commission

Action brought on 28 August 2007 — Plant and Others v
Commission

(Case T-324/07)

Parties

(Case T-326/07)

(2007/C 247/63)

Language of the case: English

(2007/C 247/62)

Language of the case: English

Applicants: Cheminova A/S (Harboøre, Denmark), Cheminova
Agro Italia Srl (Rome, Italy), Cheminova Bulgaria EOOD (Sofia,
Bulgaria), Agrodan SA (Madrid, Spain) and Lodi SAS (Grand
(represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van
Fougeray, France)
Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

(Varteg Pontypool, United Kingdom),
Applicants: Gerry Plant
(Varteg Pontypool, United Kingdom),
Mary Kathleen Plant
(Neath, United Kingdom), William Meyrick
Dennis
Jones
(Swansea, United Kingdom),
J.G. Evans (Ammanford, United
Kingdom), David Vivian Austin (Neath, United Kingdom), D.
Powell
James Rowland McCann
(Neath, United Kingdom), D. B. Diplock (Neath, United
Kingdom), John Phillips (Neath, United Kingdom) and Richard
Thomas Kingston (Swansea, United Kingdom) (represented by:
W. Graham, Solicitor)

(Neath, United Kingdom),

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission's Decision dated 18 June 2007 in

Case No. 37037 — SWSMA;

— take such further action as the Court may think just;

— order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceedings.

— Order

the

annulment

of

Commission

Decision

2007/389/EC;

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

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market (1) provides that Member
States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its
active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid
down therein are fulfilled. The applicants seek the annulment of
Commission Decision 2007/389/EC of 6 June 2007 concerning
the non-inclusion of malathion in Annex I to Council Directive
91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant
protection products containing that substance (2).

fails to consider all

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
contested decision is scientifically incomplete and flawed in that
the scientific evidence on malathion
it
it
submitted to the defendant. According to the applicants,
furthermore violates Articles 4(1), 5(1) of Directive 91/414 and
Article 95(3) EC as the defendant refused to peer review the
most resent data.