CELEX: 62020CN0374
Language: en
Date: 2020-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-374/20 P: Appeal brought on 7 August 2020 by Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 28 May 2020 in Case T-574/18, Agrochem-Maks v Commission

5.10.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 329/8
            
         
      Appeal brought on 7 August 2020 by Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 28 May 2020 in Case T-574/18, Agrochem-Maks v Commission
      (Case C-374/20 P)
      (2020/C 329/11)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, avocats)
      
         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment under appeal;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  refer the case back to the General Court;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the appellant in the present proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the requirements of the procedure regarding requests for additional information in the context of the renewal of the approval of the active substance.
      The General Court committed an error of law by holding that the complaint (relating to the seven non-finalised issues) that the existence of disagreements between EFSA’s assessments and that of the rapporteur Member State requires in-depth reasoning on that question must be rejected as unfounded in relation to the fourth issue and as ineffective with relation to the other issues.
      The General Court committed an error of law by failing to take into account all the relevant elements in order to examine the appellant’s legitimate expectations.
      The General Court erroneously qualified the facts and infringed Article 6(f) of Regulation No 1107/2009 (1), point 2.2 of Annex II to that regulation and the principle of proportionality.
      The General Court committed an error of law by incorrectly interpreting and applying the precautionary principle.
      
         (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).