Case T-565/23: Action brought on 13 September 2023 — Aurelia Stiftung v Commission
Date: 2023-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: environmental protection, health risk, market approval, plant health control, plant health product, precautionary principle, risk management








C_202300988EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/988


27.11.2023





Action brought on 13 September 2023 — Aurelia Stiftung v Commission
(Case T-565/23)
(C/2023/988)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Aurelia Stiftung (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Willand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision Ares (2023) 4611321 of 3 July 2023; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Commission erred in law in the review of the Regulation extending the approval period of the active substance glyphosate until 15 December 2023. (1) The applicant criticises the Commission for maintaining the extension of the approval of glyphosate, which, according to the applicant, is contrary to EU law, and for thereby infringing its right to a proper review under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006. (2)

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (3) by pursuing an unlawful purpose (irregular procedural step)
The approval period of an active substance may be extended under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 only where that serves to implement a procedural step provided for in that regulation or in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. (4) Waiting for the conclusion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) upon the expiry of the time limit under Article 13 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 was not such a regular procedural step. Accordingly, the extension of the glyphosate approval is not covered by the legal basis of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 by incorrectly examining whether the applicant for renewal was responsible for the reasons why a decision could not be taken on renewal
The Commission should have specifically examined to what extent the data gaps and the resulting gaps in the risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate led to delays for which the applicant for renewal was responsible. By contrast, the Commission erred in law in assuming that the applicant for renewal was not responsible in general for delays after the admissibility of the application for renewal of approval had been confirmed.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for failing to give sufficient consideration to health and environmental protection concerns
Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 grants the Commission a margin of discretion. The Commission could have refrained from extending the approval period if precluded by health or environmental protection concerns. The Commission, however, erred in law in failing to take account of those concerns and to weigh them up in the context of risk management.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to observe the precautionary principle
By disregarding health and environmental protection concerns, the Commission also failed to observe the precautionary principle with its extension of the approval for the active substance glyphosate.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons
The decision taken by the Commission against the applicant provided an inadequate statement of reasons (second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU). On the basis of its misapplication of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the defendant gave no intelligible explanation as to why its action in the renewal procedure was lawful.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2364 of 2 December 2022 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval period of the active substance glyphosate (OJ 2022 L 312, p. 99).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

(3)  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).

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 of 18 September 2012 setting out the provisions necessary for the implementation of the renewal procedure for active substances, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 2012 L 252, p. 26).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/988/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)