Action brought on 11 August 2008 - Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission
(Case T-338/08)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Applicants: Stichting Natuur en Milieu (Utrecht, Netherlands) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Kloostra and A. van den Biesen, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
annul the Commission decisions of 1 July 2008 addressed to the applicants;
order the Commission to conduct a substantive examination of the requests for internal review;
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants have requested the Commission to review Regulation No 149/2008,
2 in accordance with Title IV of Regulation No 1367/2006.
4 By letters of 1 July 2008 the Commission declared those requests to be inadmissible on the ground that the contested regulation could not be regarded as being an act of individual scope or as being a bundle of decisions.
In support of their application, the applicants first submit that Regulation No 149/2008 consists of a bundle of decisions. The applicants contend that Regulation No 149/2008 applies to a definitively defined and previously determined group of products and active substances.
In this connection, the applicants also invoke the content of Regulation No 396/2005. Under Article 6 of that regulation, a separate application for modification may be submitted for each maximum residue level established. This possibility is also granted to civil-society organisations with an interest in health, such as the applicants. A decision on such an application, they contend, must therefore be a decision which specifically relates to a particular product or a particular active substance. The same reasoning ought, in the applicants' view, to be followed in respect of maximum residue levels established by Regulation No 149/2008.
By way of alternative submission, the applicants contend that Regulation No 149/2008 concerns a decision which comes within the scope of Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Convention. Indeed, according to the applicants, it relates to a decision which is of direct and individual concern to the applicants in a manner which satisfies the requirements of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
____________1 - Commission Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 of 29 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting maximum residue levels for products covered by Annex I thereto (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 58, 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 - Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2005 L 70, p. 1).4 - Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters - Declarations (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 4).