Appeal brought on 1 May 2019 by Région de Bruxelles-Capitale against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2019 in Case T-178/18 Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission

(C-352/19 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Bailleux, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Set aside the order of 28 February 2019 (T-178/18);

Rule on the admissibility of the action for annulment brought by the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 of 12 December 2017 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 1 , and, as to the remainder, refer the case back to the General Court;

Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested order, the General Court declared the action brought by the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale inadmissible on the ground of lack of interest in bringing proceedings. More specifically, the Court held that the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale was not directly concerned by the contested regulation, within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU.

In support of its appeal, the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale raises a single plea in law which is divided into two parts.

First, the Court’s refusal to examine the conditions for admissibility of the action in the light of Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention was based on an incorrect interpretation of Articles 2(4) and 9 of that Convention and is inadequately reasoned.

Secondly, the General Court’s finding that the applicant has not been directly affected results from insufficient reasoning and failure to comply with Article 263(4) TFEU and Articles 20(2), 32(1), 36(3), 41(1), 43(5) and 43(6) of Regulation 1107/2009.

In the second part of its application, developed in the event that the Court grants the application for annulment of the contested order and decides to rule itself on the admissibility of the appeal, the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale sets out the grounds on which its appeal must be declared admissible in so far as it satisfies the conditions of Article 263(4) TFEU.

____________

1 OJ 2017 L 333, p. 10.