CELEX: C2002/144/98
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-57/02: Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Makhteshim-Agan Holding B.V. against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

15.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/47
The applicants also raise the point of a violation of the                 tion product active substance trifluralin in the list of priority
principles of consistency and uniform application of Com-                 substances which will be restricted in the EU insofar as it
munity law, of proportionality and of legal certainty and                 entails direct or indirect ‘discharges, emissions and losses’ in
legitimate expectations.                                                  the aquatic environment during normal agricultural use.
In addition, the applicants claim that the contested measure
also departs from the letter and the spirit of the international          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
agreements to which it expressely refers (OSPAR, HELCOM                   relied upon in Case T-45/02 (DOW AgroSciences and Others -
and the Barcelona Convention).                                            v- Parliament and Council (2).
(1) OJ L 331, of 15.12.2001, p. 1.                                        (1) OJ [2001] L 331, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 170, of 25.6.1992, p. 40.                                        (2) See p. 46 of the present Official Journal.
(3) OJ L 327, of 22.12.2000, p. 1.
Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Finchimica,
S.p.A. and I.Pi.Ci. — Industria Prodotti Chimici, S.p.A.
against the European Parliament and the Council of the                    Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Makhteshim-
                         European Union                                   Agan Holding B.V. against the European Parliament and
                                                                                        the Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-46/02)
                                                                                                     (Case T-57/02)
                         (2002/C 144/97)
                                                                                                    (2002/C 144/98)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: English)
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 26 February 2002
by Finchimica, S.p.A. and I.Pi.Ci. — Industria Prodotti Chimici,
S.p.A., represented by Mr Koen Van Maldegem and Mr Claudio                An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
Mereu of McKenna & Cuneo LLP, Brussels (Belgium).                         the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 27 February 2002
                                                                          by Makhteshim-Agan Holding B.V., represented by Mr Philippe
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Logelain, Mr Koen Van Maldegem and Mr Claudio Mereu of
                                                                          McKenna & Cuneo, LLP, Brussels (Belgium).
—     partially annul Decision no. 2455/2001/EC of the Euro-
      pean Parliament and of the Council of 20 November
      2001 establishing the list of priority substances in the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/
      EC (1), so as to remove trifluralin from the measure;
                                                                          —     order the partial annulment of Decision no. 2455/2001/
—     order the defendants to pay all costs and expenses in                     EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
      these proceedings.                                                        20 November 2001 establishing the list of priority
                                                                                substances and priority hazardous substances in the field
                                                                                of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC, so
                                                                                as to remove the applicant’s substances — Atrazine,
                                                                                Chlorpyrifos, Diuron, Endosulfan, Isoproturon (IPU),
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Simazine and Trifluralin — from the measure;
The applicants seek the partial annulment of Decision                     —     order the defendants to pay all costs and expenses in
no. 2455/2001/EC which includes the applicants’ plant protec-                   these proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/48               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.6.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         According to the applicant, the defendants further violated
                                                                        Articles 174, 175 and 176 of the EC Treaty by ignoring
                                                                        available scientific and technical data. The contested measure
                                                                        also violates Article 2 of the EC Treaty. According to the
                                                                        applicant, the measure distorts competition since it does not
                                                                        affect other competing plant protection products.
The applicant in this case produces pesticides (plant protection
products). The applicant contests the inclusion of certain of its
products in the list of priority substances in the field of water
                                                                        The applicant submits also that there has been a violation of
policy. This list is established by the defendants in execution
                                                                        fundamental principles of Community law. The applicant
of Directive 2000/60/EC (1). The products listed are considered
                                                                        submits that the defendants have violated Directive 2000/60
to present a risk to or via the aquatic environment and
                                                                        and therefore have infringed a superior law. The defendants
their emissions must be reduced. Furthermore, the contested
                                                                        also violated the more specific Directive 91/414/EEC, accord-
decision indicates some of the applicant’s products as priority
                                                                        ing to which some of the applicant’s products are authorised
substances ’under review’, which will lead, according to the
                                                                        for use. The contested measure also violates the principle of
applicant, to a classification as priority hazardous substances.
                                                                        legal certainty and legitimate expectation since it frustrated the
These substances pose a higher risk for the aquatic environ-
                                                                        applicant’s expectations that its products would be assessed in
ment and their emissions must be eliminated.
                                                                        accordance with the procedure under Directive 91/414/EEC
                                                                        which is still current. The applicant further claims a violation
                                                                        of the principle of equal treatment, since the procedure used
                                                                        for the establishment of the contested measure has led to a
                                                                        result contrary to that reached by the procedure under
                                                                        Directive 91/414/EEC. The contested measure would, finally,
In support of its application, the applicant claims that the            infringe the principle of proportionality.
defendants violated the procedural requirements of Directive
2000/60/EC. Article 16 (2) point (a) of this Directive provides
that plant protection products are prioritised by a risk
assessment procedure. The Defendants used however a simpli-             (1) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the
fied procedure called ’combined monitoring-based and model-                 Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for
ling-based priority setting’. According to the applicants, the              Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327,
defendants had no jurisdiction to use this simplified procedure             22.12.2000 P. 1).
currently instead of the risk-based procedure laid down in              (2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
Article 16 (2) point (a). According to the applicant, the                   placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230,
                                                                            19.8.1991 P. 1).
conditions laid down in Article 16 of Directive 2000/60/EC
for the use of a simplified procedure are not met. The applicant
further points out that the risk assessments of its plant
protection products under Directive 91/414/EEC (2) are still
continuing. Therefore, the defendants acted ultra vires by not
respecting the procedural and methodological requirements of
the basic Directive 2000/60.
                                                                        Action brought on 28 February 2002 by Archer Daniels
                                                                        Midland Company against the Commission of the Euro-
The applicant further contests the creating of a list of priority                              pean Communities
substances under review. According to the applicant this list is
in fact a list of tentative priority hazardous substances.
                                                                                                  (Case T-59/02)
According to the applicant there is no legal basis to establish
such a list. There is also no reasoning for the selection of these
substances as priority substances under review.                                                  (2002/C 144/99)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
The applicant further submits that the contested decision is in
conflict with the more specific Council Directive 91/414/EEC
on plant protection products. Therefore the defendants violate          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the principle lex specialis derogat lex generalis. This Directive       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
imposes a specific risk assessment for plant protection prod-           European Communities on 28 February 2002 by Archer
ucts. According to the applicant, the result of this specific           Daniels Midland Company, represented by Ms Lynda Martin
procedure should have been awaited before the classification            Alegi, Mr Bill Batchelor, Ms Marta Garcia and Mr Carl Otto
of its products was undertaken.                                         Lenz of Baker & McKenzie, London (United Kingdom).