Case T-550/25: Action brought on 11 August 2025 – Bündnis für eine enkeltaugliche Landwirtschaft and Umweltinstitut München v Commission
Date: 2025-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: market approval, plant health control, plant health product








C_202505470EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5470


20.10.2025






Action brought on 11 August 2025 – Bündnis für eine enkeltaugliche Landwirtschaft and Umweltinstitut München v Commission


(Case T-550/25)

(C/2025/5470)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Bündnis für eine enkeltaugliche Landwirtschaft e. V. (Lassan, Germany), Umweltinstitut München – Verein zur Erforschung und Verminderung der Umweltbelastung e. V. (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Klinger and C. Douhaire, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision Ref. Ares(2025)2815775 – 07/04/2025 of 7 April 2025, which was provided in German on 18 June 2025;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that it was wrong to refuse the request for internal review of the failure to withdraw the approval for pendimethalin pursuant to Article 21(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, (1) to not renew the approval pursuant to Article 20(1)(b) of Regulation No 1107/2009 or to take emergency measures with regard to pendimethalin pursuant to Article 69 of Regulation No 1107/2009 as inadmissible.






—


The interpretation of Article 10(1)(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, (2) read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(h) of that regulation, as meaning that the failure to withdraw the approval of an active substance pursuant to Article 21(3) of Regulation No 1107/2009 cannot be subject to a request for internal review is incorrect.










—


The interpretation and application of the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006, read in conjunction with Article 2(h) of that regulation, in such a way that the request for internal review of the failure to take measures pursuant to Article 21(3), Article 20(1)(b) or Article 69 of Regulation No 1107/2009 was out of time is incorrect. The decision refusing the request to terminate the approval for pendimethalin should be considered to be the event causing time to begin to run. By submitting the request for internal review on 30 September 2024, the time limit referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 was observed.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that it was wrong to refuse the request for internal review of the failure to take measures pursuant to Article 21(3) of Regulation No 1107/2009 as unfounded.
The Commission is under an obligation to review and withdraw the authorisation for pendimethalin under Article 21(1) and (3) of Regulation No 1107/2009, read in conjunction with Article 6(f), Article 4(1), subparagraphs b, c and e of Article 4(3) thereof, and point 3.7.2 of Annex II to that regulation, read in the light of Article 191(2) TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that it was wrong to refuse the request for internal review of the failure to adopt a Non-Renewal Regulation pursuant to Article 20(1)(b) of Regulation No 1107/2009 as unfounded.
There is an obligation not to renew the approval for pendimethalin pursuant to Article 20(1)(b) of Regulation No 1107/2009, read in conjunction with Article 6(f), Article 4(1), subparagraphs b, c, and e of Article 4(3) thereof, and point 3.7.2. of Annex II to that regulation, read in the light of Article 191(2) TFEU.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that it was wrong to refuse the request for internal review of the failure to take measures pursuant to Article 69 of Regulation No 1107/2009 with regard to the active substance pendimethalin as unfounded.
The conditions for application of Article 69 of Regulation No 1107/2009 are also satisfied as pendimethalin creates serious risks to the environment.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1107/2009 under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2221 (3) was misinterpreted and misapplied.






—


The interpretation of Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009 as meaning that the Commission was under an obligation to extend the approval period for pendimethalin regardless of any risks for the environment or health is incorrect.










—


By extending that period excessively, Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009 was infringed. The extension of the approval period as determined in Implementing Regulation 2024/2221 goes beyond the time that is absolutely necessary to complete the procedure.










(1)  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).

(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)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2221 of 6 September 2024 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval periods of the active substances acequinocyl, aluminium silicate, emamectin, fatty acids C7 to C20, pendimethalin, plant oils / rape seed oil and triclopyr (OJ L, 2024/2221).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5470/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)