Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-158/03)

    (Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A., whose registered office is in Mollet del Vallés (Barcelona, Spain), represented by Cani Fernández Vicién, Paloma González-Espejo and Julio Sabater Marotias, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Annul Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May 2003,

(order the European Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred for the purposes of making an application for interim relief.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is directed against Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of metalaxyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products containing this active substance. ¹

In support of its claims, the applicant company relies on the following pleas in law and main arguments:

(Infringement of Directive 91/414 ² and Regulation No 3600/92, ³ in so far as the Commission requires that each of the notifying parties submit a complete dossier when presenting a notification collectively with other notifiers of active substances and send such complete dossier to the defendant within the time-limit referred to in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 3600/92. It is also contrary to that provision for the defendant institution to assume that the applicant is not able to submit data relating to the evaluation of metalaxyl. The applicant company therefore takes the view that the contested decision contradicts the interpretation made by the Commission itself concerning use of the studies provided by Syngenta in the drawing up of the report by the rapporteur Member State.

(Infringement of the principle of proportionality. In this regard, the applicant would point out, in particular, the fact that the effect of the contested decision consists in excluding it from the European market when its scientific analysis has not even been completed.

(Misuse of powers, inasmuch as, in the applicant's view, the purpose of the Commission is none other than to favour an undertaking which is its direct competitor.

____________

¹ - (OJ 2003 L 113, p. 8

² - (Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market OJ 1991 L 230 , p. 1

³ - (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 1992 L 366, p. 10)