Action brought on 15 October 2012 - Générations futures v Commission

(Case T-458/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mouvement pour les droits et le respect des générations futures (Ons-en-Bray, France) (represented by: A. Faro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annulment of the decision of the Director-General for Health and Consumers of 16 August 2012 (ARES 977 175) refusing the application for review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2012 of 25 April 2012 approving the active substance metam, 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, made on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a French association approved for environmental protection activities, seeks, on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006, the review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2012 of 25 April 2012 approving the active substance metam. ² By decision of 16 August 2012, the Commission refused to carry out that review on the ground that the implementing regulation of which review is sought does not constitute an administrative act within the meaning of Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006. 

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a certain number of pleas in law.

The applicant submits, firstly, that the implementing regulation is the response to an individual application made by a third party undertaking and, secondly, that the restriction to administrative acts laid down in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) of that regulation, is not compatible with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. 

The applicant also submits that its application for review is well founded, since (i) the applicable procedure was not followed, (ii) the file submitted for evaluation is insufficient and (iii) the approval criteria were not applied.

____________

¹ - Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2012 of 25 April 2012 approving the active substance metam, 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 (OJ 2012 L 114, p. 1).

² - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

³ - Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.