Language of document :

Notice for the OJ

 

    

Action brought on 11 March 2002 by Griffin Europe Headquarter N.V. against the European Parliament and the Council for the European Union

    (Case T-70/02)

    Language of the case: English

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 2002 by Griffin Europe Headquarter N.V., represented by Mr Koen Van Maldegem and Mr Claudio Mereu of McKenna & Cuneo, LLP, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-order the partial annulment of Decision 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council dated 20 November 2001 establishing a list of priority substances in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC, so as to remove diuron and isoproturon from the measure;

- order the Defendants to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in this case produces pesticides (plant protection products). The applicant contests the inclusion of certain of its products' active substances, diuron and isoproturon, in the list of priority substances in the field of water policy. This list is established by the defendants in execution of Directive 2000/60/EC1. The products listed are considered to present a risk to or via the aquatic environment and their emissions must be reduced. Furthermore, the contested decision indicates some of the applicant's products as priority substances 'under review', which will lead, according to the applicant, to a classification as priority hazardous substances. These substances pose a higher risk for the aquatic environment and their emissions must be eliminated.

The applicant objects to the procedure and the methodology used by the defendants when adopting the contested Decision. To establish the contested list, the defendants used a summary procedure as laid down in Article 16 (2), second paragraph, of Directive 2000/60.

The pleas and arguments invoked in the present case are largely similar to those raised in case T-45/02, DOW AgroSciences and DOW AgroSciences -v- European Parliament and Council of the European Union (not yet published in the OJ).

____________

1 - Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy(OJ L 327 , 22/12/2000 P. 1)