Action brought on 18 March 2013 - TestBioTech and Others/Commission

(Case T-177/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany); European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV (Braunschweig, Germany); and Sambucus eV (Vahlde, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith, QC, J. Stevenson, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Declare the application admissible;

Annul the decision of the Commission of 8 January 2013, which rejected the applicants' requests for Internal Review of the Commission Decision No 2012/347/EU of 28 June 2012, granting a market authorisation under Regulation No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed to Monsanto Europe SA for its genetically modified soybean "MON 87701 x MON 89788";

Order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs; and

Order any other measure deemed appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that EFSA's assessment that the Soybean is "substantially equivalent" to its appropriate comparators is unlawful, is based on a scientific assessment which was not carried out in accordance with its own guidance, and/or is based on a manifest error of assessment.

Second plea in law, alleging that EFSA's failure to give adequate or any consideration to the potential synergistic/combinatorial effects between the Soybean and other factors, and/or to require an adequate toxicity assessment to be conducted is contrary to its own guidance, legal obligations and/or it constitutes a manifest error of assessment.

Third plea in law, alleging that EFSA's failure to require an adequate immunological assessment to be carried out is contrary to its own guidance, legal obligations and/or constitutes a manifest error of assessment.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that EFSA's determination that no post-market authorisation monitoring of the consumption of the Soybean is manifestly in error and/or is vitiated by the flaws identified in the first three pleas.

____________