Case T-470/07: Action brought on 19 December 2007 — Dow Agrosciences BV and Others v Commission
Date: 2007-12-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), consumer protection, market approval, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical product

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/41

There has been no infringement whatsoever of the provisions of
the EC Treaty or of secondary legislation thereunder and no
distorting effect on competition in the common market.

In accordance with the principle of equal treatment, the appli-
cant maintains that, given that the investment project in ques-
tion presents all the features presented by the Vila Galé project
— the subject of the Commission's decision of 15 October
2003 — the Commission's decision on State aid C 4/2006
ought to have been the same as the former decision.

Action brought on 19 December

2007 — Dow

Agrosciences BV and Others v Commission

(Case T-470/07)

(2008/C 64/67)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Salej and
Technologie Buczek v Commission

Parties

(Case T-465/07)

(2008/C 64/66)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicants: Emilian Salej, acting as receiver for Technologie
Buczek S.A. (Sosnowiec, Poland), and Technologie Buczek S.A.
(Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: D. Szlachetko-Reiter, legal
adviser)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare invalid Articles 1, 3(1) and 3(3) of the Commission
decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006
(ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to
the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek;

2007

23 October

— declare invalid Articles 4 and 5 of the Commission decision
of
in Case No C 23/2006
(ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to
the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek in so far as
those provisions concern the recovery of the aid mentioned
in Article 1 of the decision;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the form of order sought, the applicants put
forward pleas in law identical to those raised by the applicant in
Case T-440/07 Huta Buczek v Commission (1).

(1) OJ 2008 C 22, p. 50.

Applicants: Dow Agrosciences BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands),
Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom), Dow AgroS-
ciences SAS (Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences Export SAS
(Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl
Italy),
Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA (Madrid, Spain), Dow AgroS-
ciences Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH (Neusiedl am See, Austria),
Dow AgroSciences LLC (Indianapolis, United States) (represented
by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu, lawyers)

(Milan,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— To

order
2007/619/EC;

the

annulment

of Commission Decision

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

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision
2007/619/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclu-
sion of 1,3-dichloropropene in Annex I to Council Directive
91/414/EEC (1)
(‘Directive 91/414’) and the withdrawal of
authorisations for plant protection products containing that
substance.

According to the applicants, the contested decision is unlawful
because of the following reasons:

(a) it infringes essential procedural requirements, as it is based
on a report
from the European Food Safety Authority
(‘EFSA’) that allegedly infringes Article 8(7) of Commission
Regulation 451/2000 (2); as the defendant infringed Article
8(8) of the above-mentioned regulation and as the contested
decision fails to comply with the applicable legislative proce-
dure, infringing thus, Articles 5 EC, 7 EC and Article 5 of
Decision 1999/468 (3);

C 64/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2008

(b) it contains manifest errors of appreciation because it decides
on the non-inclusion of 1,3-dichloropropene in Annex I to
Council Directive 91/414/EEC without it being established
that the substance poses an unacceptable risk to human
health or the environment and does not meet the require-
ments of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of Directive 91/414 for inclu-
sion in Annex I;

Other party
Belgiím)

to the proceedings: Michael Berrisford (Brussels,

(i) the principles of

c) it breaches general principles of Community law and, in par-
legal certainty and legitimate
ticular,
(iii) the
expectations,
principle of equal treatment,
(iv) the principle of sound
administration, and (v) the applicants' right to defence and
right to a fair hearing;

(ii) the principle of proportionality,

(d) it infringes the EC Treaty and the rule of law related to its
application, and in particular,
(i) Article 13 of Directive
91/414, as well as (ii) Article 95 EC and Articles 4 and 5 of
the above-mentioned directive.

illegality pursuant

The applicants also raise a plea of
to
Article 241 EC against Article 20 of Commission Regulation
1490/2002 (4) which, according to their allegations, substan-
tially altered their legal rights of expectations through the
amendment of Regulation 451/2000 so as to provide manda-
tory involvement of EFSA in the review of
the substance
concerned.

(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000
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 Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ L 55, p. 25).

(3) Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the
procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on
the Commission (OJ L 184, p. 23).

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 of 14 August 2002
laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the
third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of
Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Regulation (EC)
No 451/2000 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 224, p. 23).

Appeal brought on 21 December 2007 by Commission of
the European Communities against the judgment of the
Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 October 2007 in
Case F-107/06, Berrisford v Commission

(Case T-473/07 P)

(2008/C 64/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by D. Martin and K. Hermann, Agents)

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside the judgment of

the Civil Service Tribunal of
10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06 in so far as it holds,
following the examination of the first part of the second
plea, alleging failure to take any account of the fact that he
had reached the promotion threshold two times but had not
been promoted during the earlier exercises at first instance,
that
the Appointing Authority has therefore vitiated the
consideration of the applicant's comparative merits at first
instance with an error of law and, therefore, in this case, a
manifest error of assessment;

— refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

— reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the Commission seeks partial annulment of the
judgment of 10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06 Berrisford v
Commission, by which the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled
its decision not to include the applicant's name on the list of
officials promoted in the 2005 promotion procedure and
dismissed the action with respect to the remainder of the appli-
cant's forms of order.

In support of its appeal the Commission first puts forward two
pleas alleging errors of law which it claims the CST committed
in the contested judgment.

First, the Commission claims that the CST has infringed Article
45(1) of the Staff Regulations in so far as it laid down an obliga-
tion for the Appointing Authority to take account, by awarding
extra points during the consideration of the applicant's merits,
of the fact that he was put forward on two occasions by his
directorate general in the procedure for ‘reserve officials’.

The second error of law that the Commission complains of in
the contested decision is an infringement of Article 13(1) and
(3)(b) of General Implementing Provisions in that the CST failed
to recognise that the applicant's situation in 2003 and 2004
had been implicitly taken into consideration when the AIPN
awarded points as a merit aspect related to the length of time in
his grade.