Action brought on 5 June 2015 – European Union Copper Task Force v Commission

(Case T-310/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Union Copper Task Force (Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408, of 11 March 2015, on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution, to the extent that it applies to copper compounds;

order the Commission to pay the costs generated by this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408, of 11 March 2015, on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution has been adopted on an illegal basis, as Regulation No 1107/2009, in particular its Articles 24 and Annex II, point 4, infringe EU law.

The applicant puts forward that scientific evidence indicates that Persistence, Bioaccumulation and Toxicity (“PBT”) criteria, in particular persistence, are not appropriate for copper.

Moreover, according to the applicant, the application of PBT criteria to inorganic substances is not consistent with other pieces of legislation that have been implemented in the field of regulated chemical substances.

Finally, so the applicant claims, as far as candidates for substitution are concerned, the application of PBT criteria to copper compounds goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued by Regulation No 1107/2009 and Regulation No 1107/2009 misinterprets the precautionary principle.

Second plea in law, alleging, subsidiarity, that by including copper compounds within the scope of Implementing Regulation 2015/408, the Commission has infringed the principle of proportionality.

____________