CELEX: 62016TN0476
Language: en
Date: 2016-08-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-476/16: Action brought on 25 August 2016 — Adama Agriculture and Adama France v Commission

31.10.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 402/48
            
         Action brought on 25 August 2016 — Adama Agriculture and Adama France v Commission
   (Case T-476/16)
   (2016/C 402/57)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Adama Agriculture BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Adama France (Sèvres, France) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)
   
      Defendants: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the application admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision (1) and rule that (i) the approval of the active substance isoproturon (IPU) should be renewed or, in the alternative, (ii) remand the assessment of the renewal of the approval of IPU to the defendant and suspend any and all relevant deadlines under the PPPR and its implementing regulations so as to allow the operation of a proper timeframe for adopting a new decision on the renewal of IPU; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants submit that the contested decision was adopted by the defendant in violation of the rights and principles guaranteed by the EU. They contend that the contested decision is unlawful because it infringes the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (‘'TFEU’') and EU secondary legislation on the following five grounds:
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of appraisal: Pursuant to recitals 8, 9 and 10 of the contested decision, IPU was banned on the basis of its (i) risk resulting from exposure to a metabolite in groundwater, (ii) risk for birds, mammals and aquatic organisms and (iii) the proposed classification of IPU as a substance toxic for reproduction category 2. All concerns however on which the contested decision is based are procedurally and/or substantively flawed and fail to take into account information which was submitted by the applicants.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of CLP Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (2) procedure — ultra vires act: By proposing the classification of IPU as toxic for reproduction and by relying on that proposal for justifying the non-renewal of the approval of IPU, the defendant has infringed both the CLP Regulation and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (3) concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (‘'PPPR’'), and as such has acted ultra vires.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence and the principle of sound administration: the behaviour of the RMS, EFSA and the Commission have individually and collectively violated the right to be heard and right of the defence of the applicants by depriving them of a fair hearing and due process. In particular, despite repeated and proactive attempts to contact the RMS and EFSA, the applicants did not receive timely feedback. Additionally, submissions made by the applicants have not been taken into account.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment: while the Commission has adopted a strict approach on IPU (based on manifest errors of assessment and procedures), it did not do so in similar situations/previous decisions related to substances with similar concerns, which amounts to an infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality: By not choosing less stricter measures which would have achieved the same objectives (e.g. approval subject to conditions to be assessed at Member State level or subject to submission of confirmatory data at the EU level in accordance with Article 6 of the PPPR), and instead by banning IPU, the Commission has infringed the principle of proportionality.
            
         
      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/872 of 1 June 2016 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance isoproturon, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2016, L 145, p. 7)
   
      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ 2008, L 353, p. 1)
   
      (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)