|
9.6.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 165/13 |
Appeal brought on 27 March 2012 by Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 19 January 2012 in Case T-71/10: Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC v European Commission
(Case C-149/12 P)
2012/C 165/21
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu, avocats)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in case T-71/10; and |
|
— |
Annul the decision not to include diphenylamine (‘DPA’) in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1) and holding that Member States must withdraw authorizations for plant protection products containing DPA by 30 May 2010; or |
|
— |
Alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant's Application for annulment; and |
|
— |
Order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court). |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for annulment in respect of the decision of the Commission to not include DPA in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and holding that Member States must withdraw authorizations for plant protection products containing DPA by 30 May 2010, the General Court breached Union law. In particular, the Appellants contend that the General court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the facts and of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellants' situation. That resulted in it making a number of errors in law, in particular:
|
— |
By holding that the issue regarding the possible formation of nitrosamines was not the principal motivation for the adoption of the Commission's decision, when the reasoning given by the General Court in the Judgment supported the opposite view. |
|
— |
By confusing two stages in the review process for DPA under Regulation 1490/2002 (2), as amended by Regulation 10/95/2007 (3), which led the General Court to decide wrongly that the Appellant's rights of defence had not been breached. |
|
— |
By finding, that the question relating to the possible formation of nitrosamines was raised in June 2008 rather than January 2008 as the documentary evidence clearly showed, the General Court's decision that the delay in the process by the European Food Safety Authority in no way denied the Appellants of their right to withdraw support for the inclusion of DPA in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC, was invalidated. |
For these reasons the Appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-71/10 should be set aside and the decision of the Commission not to include DPA in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and holding that Member States must withdraw authorizations for plant protection products containing DPA by 30 May 2010, should be annulled.
(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market
OJ L 230, p. 1
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 of 14 August 2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Regulation (EC) No 451/2000
OJ L 224, p. 23
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007 of 20 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the fourth stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC
OJ L 246, p. 19