Notice for the OJ
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Action brought on 27 February 2004 by the European Environmental Bureau, PAN-Europe, the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers's Associations (IUF), the European Federation of Trade Unions in the Food Agricultural and Tourism Sectors and Allied Branches (EFFAT), Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen (Swedish Society for Nature Conservation) against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-94/04)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 February 2004 by the European Environmental Bureau, Brussels (Belgium), PAN-Europe, London (United Kingdom), the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers's Associations (IUF), Geneva (Switzerland), the European Federation of Trade Unions in the Food Agricultural and Tourism Sectors and Allied Branches (EFFAT), Brussels (Belgium), Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Utrecht (Netherlands), and Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen (Swedish Society for Nature Conservation), Stockholm (Sweden), represented by P. van den Biesen and B. Arentz, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
- annul Commission Directive 2003/112/EC
- Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings;
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The contested measure, Commission Directive 2003/1121, amended Directive 91/4142 so as to include a herbicide called "Paraquat" in Annex 1 of Directive 91/414. Article 4 of Directive 91/414 states that only plant protection products containing substances listed in Annex 1 may be authorised by Member States. Thus, the effect of the contested measure is that Member States will in future be bound to authorise plant protection products containing "Paraquat".
The applicants request the court to annul the contested directive, claiming that in adopting it the Commission violated Directive 91/414 as well as the precautionary principle in matters of environmental policy provided for in Article 174 para. 2 of the EC treaty. They claim further that the contested directive also violated Directive 79/4093Official Journal L 103 , 25/04/1979 P. 1 - 18 , since it failed to take into account the effects of "Paraquat" on birds.
____________1 - Commission Directive 2003/2/EC of December 2003 amending Council Directive 9/44/EEC to include paraquat as an active substance, Official Journal L 32 , 06/2/2003 P. 32 - 35 2 - Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, Official Journal L 30 , 19/08/1991 P. 1 - 3 3 - Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds