Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 20.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/38 |

---

Action brought on 30 August 2007 — Cheminova and Others v Commission

(Case T-326/07)

(2007/C 247/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Cheminova A/S (Harboøre, Denmark), Cheminova Agro Italia Srl (Rome, Italy), Cheminova Bulgaria EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria), Agrodan SA (Madrid, Spain) and Lodi SAS (Grand Fougeray, France) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/389/EC; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market[(1)](#ntr1-C_2007247EN.01003802-E0001) provides that Member States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/389/EC of 6 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of malathion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance[(2)](#ntr2-C_2007247EN.01003802-E0002).

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the contested decision is scientifically incomplete and flawed in that it fails to consider all the scientific evidence on malathion submitted to the defendant. According to the applicants, it furthermore violates Articles 4(1), 5(1) of Directive 91/414 and Article 95(3) EC as the defendant refused to peer review the most resent data.

The applicants further contend that the contested decision was based on a scientific report which was not established within the time-limit set out in Article 8(7) of Regulation 451/2000.

Moreover, the applicants allege among others a violation of the principles of proportionality, non-discrimination, subsidiarity and sound administration as well as the obligation to state reasons and their right to be heard.

Finally, the applicants submit that they will not be able to exercise their intellectual property rights pursuant to Article 13 of Directive 91/414 in connection with the data package submitted to the defendant.

---

[Top](#document1)