Case T-725/15: Action brought on 11 December 2015 — Chemtura Netherlands/EFSA
Date: 2015-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, confidentiality, data protection, insecticide, legal basis, market approval, plant health control, rights of the defence, trade information








C_2016068EN.01003302.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/33





Action brought on 11 December 2015 — Chemtura Netherlands/EFSA
(Case T-725/15)
(2016/C 068/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Chemtura Netherlands (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare its application admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’) Decision of 10 December 2015 concerning the publication of certain parts of the EFSA Conclusion on the Peer Review on the review of the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron regarding the metabolite PCA in respect of which the applicant claimed confidentiality pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1);










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Regulation 1107/2009 and the fundamental right to the protection of business secrets.






—


The applicant questions the legal basis on which the defendant concluded that it had a duty to publish its conclusions. Even if the publication of EFSA conclusions taken under Article 21 of Regulation 1107/2009 was legitimate, the defendant has violated Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 by publishing confidential information.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appraisal






—


The applicant submits that the defendant based its decision on an inaccurate understanding of the facts and related science, which led to a manifest error of appraisal of their confidentiality claims.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of fundamental principles of EU law: right of defence and the principle of sound administration






—


The applicant was not given a chance to comment on documents on which the EFSA’s conclusions are based.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of EFSA’s own duties






—


The defendant has not based its assessment on all available scientific evidence, whereas it is under an obligation to produce work of the highest scientific quality.














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of legitimate expectations






—


The applicant is in ongoing discussions with the Commission and correspondence from the Commission reflects that the applicant would be given a chance to comment on the EFSA conclusions as part of the Commission’s review process. The applicant’s comments should be taken into account before the publication of the EFSA conclusion.