Case T-644/25: Action brought on 21 September 2025 – Générations futures v Commission
Date: 2025-09-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: biocide, building materials, chemical product, environmental protection, market approval, precautionary principle, preservative, public health, wood product








C_202505972EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5972


17.11.2025






Action brought on 21 September 2025 – Générations futures v Commission


(Case T-644/25)

(C/2025/5972)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Association Générations futures (Ons-en-Bray, France) (represented by: F. Lafforgue, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission (Ref. Ares (2025) 5633039) of 11 July 2025 rejecting the request for internal review of the Commission’s failure to adopt an implementing regulation withdrawing the approval of the active substance tebuconazole for use in biocidal products of product types TP 07, TP 08 and TP 10;










—


order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.





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 error of assessment and an error in law by the European Commission in so far as it found that the request for internal review was inadmissible. The Commission submits that the request is inadmissible on the ground that the Commission had neither the obligation to carry out the review procedure, in respect of which it enjoys a broad discretion, nor a mandatory timeframe within which to do so. However, while the legislature intended to confer on the Commission a broad discretion as risk manager, the fact remains that maintaining the approval of an active substance that presents an unacceptable risk to health and the environment is contrary to the spirit of the law. The characterisation of the exclusion criteria amounts to a situation of circumscribed powers, in which discretion is reduced to the examination of the conditions of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 528/2012. (1)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and an error in law by the Commission in so far as it claims that no infringement of Regulation No 1107/2009 (2) can be established. The Commission submits that there is no infringement of Regulation No 528/2012 in that the harmonised classification of tebuconazole has not been finalised and the opinion of the risk assessment committee is not the final step in respect of that harmonised classification. Since tebuconazole fulfils the exclusion criteria, the Commission should have reviewed and withdrawn approval of that substance, notwithstanding the fact that the procedure concerning the harmonised classification has not been finalised and that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has not yet delivered its assessment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and an error in law in that the Commission finds that the precautionary principle has not been infringed. The Commission seeks to hinder the precautionary approach even though Regulation No 528/2012 does not make the implementation of the review procedure – which indisputably complies with a precautionary approach – conditional on the entry into force of a harmonised classification of a substance. In refusing to implement the review procedure after receipt of the applicant’s request for internal review, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and an error in law by the Commission in so far as it found no incompatibility between the failure to review the approval of the active substance tebuconazole and the European objectives of protection of health and the environment. Failure to proceed to the review of an active substance for which the conditions of approval are no longer satisfied, where the substance meets criteria allowing its classification as a reprotoxic substance, runs counter to the objective of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment.






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, 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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5972/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)