CELEX: C2006/060/84
Language: en
Date: 2006-03-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-454/05: Action brought on  20 December 2005  — Sumimoto Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France v Commission

11.3.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 60/44
            
         Action brought on 20 December 2005 — Sumimoto Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France v Commission
   (Case T-454/05)
   (2006/C 60/84)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicants: Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS (Lyon, France) and Philagro France SAS (Lyon, France) [represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu, lawyers]
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Order the annulment of Commission Decision D/430967; or, in the alternative,
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to comply with its obligations under Community law and propose the inclusion of procymidone in Annex I to the PPPD for all uses/crops, as requested by the applicants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to compensate the applicants in the provisional amount of 1 (one) Euro for damages suffered as a result of Commission Decision D/430967, or, in the alternative, as a result of the defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Community law by failing to respond to the applicants, as well as any applicable interests, pending the exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Council Directive 91/414 (1) 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 have repeatedly contacted the Commission with a view to ensuring that procymidone, the active substance contained in their plant protection products, should be included in Annex I.
   By letter of the 20 October 2005, which constitutes the contested Decision, the Commission informed the first applicant that possible inclusion of procymidone in Annex I would, at most, cover the supported uses that have been the subject of EU evaluation; it further makes such inclusion conditional on the submission of a proposal for highly detailed conditions of use and risk mitigation measures.
   The applicants request the annulment of that Decision, criticizing the proposed limited authorisation of procymidone, which would lead to it being registered only for two crops, namely plums and cucumbers, as well as the requirement for highly detailed conditions of use. According to the applicant, these requirements violated the PPPD which only refers to broad use categories, such as insecticides, growth regulators or herbicides, leaving it to the Member States to assess use in relation to specific crops. In the same context the applicants allege that the requirement for detailed conditions is neither allowed under the PPPD nor scientifically justified.
   The applicants further submit that the contested Decision errs when it states that studies submitted after the fixed deadlines cannot be examined because, according to the applicants, all procymidone data were timely submitted. They also consider that the contested Decision violates Articles 95(3) and 152(1) EC by refusing to consider studies submitted in time and found satisfactory by the evaluators.
   The applicants also invoke violations of the PPPD, of Regulation 3600/92 (2), of the principles of sound administration, of subsidiarity and proportionality, of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, of the excellence and independence of scientific advice, of equal treatment and ‘estoppel’ and of the duty to state reasons.
   Should the court consider that the contested letter is not an act which can be challenged under Article 230(4) EC, the applicants submit that their action is still admissible under Article 232 EC against the Commission's failure to act upon their administrative complaint and formal request. In addition and independently of the actions for annulment and failure to act, the applicants claim compensation for damages suffered as a direct consequence of the contested letter.
   
      (1)  OJ L 230, 19/08/1991, p. 1.
   
      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8 (2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, OJ L 366, 15/12/1992, p. 10