Case T-576/24: Action brought on 8 November 2024 – Bündnis für eine enkeltaugliche Landwirtschaft v Commission
Date: 2024-11-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: environmental protection, health risk, market approval, plant health control, plant health product








C_202500095EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/95


6.1.2025






Action brought on 8 November 2024 – Bündnis für eine enkeltaugliche Landwirtschaft v Commission


(Case T-576/24)

(C/2025/95)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Bündnis für eine enkeltaugliche Landwirtschaft eV (Lassan, Germany) (represented by: R. Klinger and C. Douhaire, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant's decision ref. Ares(2024)5860545 - 15/08/2024 of 15 August 2024, which was communicated in German on 11 September 2024, in so far as it rejects as unfounded the applicant’s request for internal review of 18 March 2024 regarding the extension of the approval period for Fluopyram by Implementing Regulation 2024/324 (1);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an incorrect interpretation of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (2) to the effect that there is no obligation to observe the time limits of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 (3) in the context of the decision under Article 17.
The period of three years stipulated by the EU legislature in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 may not be exceeded arbitrarily because any overrun would result in the maximum duration of the initial authorisation stipulated in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 being exceeded and the proof of the existence of the authorisation criteria required in Article 7(1) and Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 would not be provided.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an incorrect interpretation of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to the effect that this standard obliges the Commission to extend an authorisation irrespective of the risks to the environment and health.
Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 cannot be understood as obliging the Commission to extend an authorisation regardless of the risks that such an extension may entail for human health and the environment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging Infringement of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 due to the setting of an excessively long extension period.
The extension period set for Fluopyram in Implementing Regulation EU 2024/324 goes beyond the period that is absolutely necessary to complete the procedure.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/324 of 19 January 2024 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval periods of the active substances benzovindiflupyr, bromuconazole, buprofezin, cyflufenamid, fluazinam, fluopyram, flutolanil, lambda-cyhalothrin, mecoprop-P, mepiquat, metsulfuron-methyl, phosphane and pyraclostrobin (OJ L, 2024/324).

(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).

(3)  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/2025/95/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)