CELEX: C2006/096/50
Language: en
Date: 2006-04-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-75/06: Action brought on  27 February 2006  — Bayer CropScience a.o. v Commission

22.4.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 96/31
            
         Action brought on 27 February 2006 — Bayer CropScience a.o. v Commission
   (Case T-75/06)
   (2006/C 96/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicants: Bayer CropScience AG (Monheim am Rhein, Germany), Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Teko AE (Athens, Greece) and Aragonesas Agro SA (Madrid, Spain) [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 2005/864/EC (1), of 2 December 2005, concerning the non-inclusion of endosulfan in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing this substance; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Council Directive 91/414 (2) concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (known as the ‘plant protection products directive’ or ‘PPPD’) provides that Member States shall not authorise a product unless it is inscribed in Annex I of the Directive. The applicants, who are producers of endosulfan, request the annulment of the contested Decision, which refused to include endosulfan in that Annex.
   In support of their application they first invoke a number of alleged procedural irregularities, namely: that the assessment of the contested Decision is based on criteria other than those specified in Directive 91/414, is incomplete and makes only selective use of the data submitted by the applicants; that new guidelines and criteria established by the Commission were applied retroactively after the applicant's notification and submission of data; and that the Commission refused to advise and consult with the applicants in relation to changing evaluation criteria and policy.
   The applicants further allege that from a substantive law viewpoint the contested Decision violates Article 95(3) EC and Article 5(1) of Directive 91/414. They consider that the Commission failed to comply with its duty, under these provisions, to assess active substances and include them in Annex I in light of current scientific and technical knowledge and subject only to the requirements listed in article 5.
   They further invoke the violation of a number of general principles of Community law, namely: the principle of proportionality, the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, the duty to perform a diligent and impartial assessment, the right of due process (right of defence and right to a fair hearing), the principle of excellence and independence of scientific advice, the principle of equal treatment, the principle that more general provisions must give way to a lex specialis and finally the principle of estoppel.
   
      (1)  OJ L 317, 3/12/2005 p. 25
   
   
      (2)  OJ L 230, 19/08/1991 p.1