Case T-94/23: Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Pollinis France v Commission
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: health risk, market approval, plant health control, plant health product








C_2023179EN.01005502.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/55






Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Pollinis France v Commission
(Case T-94/23)
(2023/C 179/81)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pollinis France (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Bailleux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision, dated 6 December 2022, rejecting the applicant’s request for internal review, regarding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/708 (1) (‘the contested decision’), insofar as it extends the approval period of the active substance boscalid;










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an unlawful reading of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).
The contested decision is based on a reading of Article 17 which is not compatible with the provisions and objectives of Regulation No 1107/2009, with the precautionary principle and with several primary law provisions [Articles 168 and 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)].
Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009 cannot be interpreted as obliging the Commission to extend an approval indefinitely, irrespective of the number and duration of previously granted extensions and irrespective of the risks such an extension may pose for human health or for the environment.
In the case of boscalid in particular, the Commission could not extend for so many years its approval considering that the application for renewal raised a large number of questions from EFSA and that numerous studies raise serious doubts as to the safety of boscalid for both human health and the environment.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, the illegality of Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009.
If the Court were to take the view that the contested decision (and the Commission Implementing Regulation 2022/708) are based on a sound reading of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009, this legislative provision should be set aside for the purpose of the present proceedings, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, because it would be contrary to the precautionary principle, Articles 168 and 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter. Accordingly, Article 17 should not be applied and could not serve as a proper legal justification for the contested decision, which should therefore be annulled.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the requirements set out in Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009.
The Commission erred in considering that the conditions for extension under Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009 were satisfied:






—


the Commission erred in considering that the delay in the renewal process was not attributable to the applicant for renewal, without investigating at all the role played by the applicant in that delay;










—


the Commission erred in considering that the extension of the approval period of boscalid, for the fifth consecutive year, was necessary to examine the application for renewal.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons.
The Commission erred both in finding the Commission Implementing Regulation 2022/708 as sufficiently reasoned and in failing to state, in the contested decision, the reasons for the delay in the reassessment procedure.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/708 of 5 May 2022 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval periods of the active substances 2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid methylester, acetic acid, aclonifen, aluminium ammonium sulphate, aluminium phosphide, aluminium silicate, beflubutamid, benthiavalicarb, boscalid, calcium carbide, captan, cymoxanil, dimethomorph, dodemorph, ethephon, ethylene, extract from tea tree, fat distilation residues, fatty acids C7 to C20, fluoxastrobin, flurochloridone, folpet, formetanate, gibberellic acid, gibberellins, hydrolysed proteins, iron sulphate, magnesium phosphide, metam, metamitron, metazachlor, metribuzin, milbemectin, phenmedipham, pirimiphos-methyl, plant oils/clove oil, plant oils/rape seed oil, plant oils/spear mint oil, propamocarb, proquinazid, prothioconazole, pyrethrins, quartz sand, fish oil, repellents by smell of animal or plant origin/sheep fat, S-metolachlor, Straight Chain Lepidopteran Pheromones, sulcotrione, tebuconazole and urea (OJ 2022 L 133, p. 1).

(2)  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).