CELEX: 62020TN0629
Language: en
Date: 2020-10-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-629/20: Action brought on 15 October 2020 — Delifruit v Commission

14.12.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 433/61
            
         
      Action brought on 15 October 2020 — Delifruit v Commission
      (Case T-629/20)
      (2020/C 433/76)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Delifruit, SA (Guayaquil, Ecuador) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, P. Sellar and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  declare the application admissible and well-founded;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  partially annul the Contested Act, as amended by Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085, in so far as it establishes the maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos for bananas at 0,01 mg/kg; and,
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The applicant seeks the partial annulment of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085 of 23 July 2020 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl in or on certain products (1), as amended by Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085 (2).
      In support of the action, the applicant alleges the Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment by not taking into account a relevant factor (a substantive study disproving one of the alleged reasons for the adoption of the maximum residue limit) in its assessment leading to the adoption of the contested act, and, in so doing, has also infringed Article 14(2) (a) and (f) of Regulation 396/2005 which require that all relevant and available data be taken into account by it.
      
         (1)  OJ 2020 L 239, p. 7
      
      
         (2)  OJ 2020 L 245, p. 31