Action brought on 4 January 2013 - ClientEarth e.a. v Commission

(Case T-8/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), Générations futures (Ons-en-Bray, France); and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. van den Biesen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Annul the contested decision of the Commission of the European Union of 26 October 2012 (Ares(2012)1271350) ;

Order the Commission to pay to the applicants an amount to be fixed by the General Court in reparation of the material and non-material damages they have incurred; and

Order the commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants wished to make use of the rights provided to them by the Aarhus Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 September 2006)². Pursuant to that Regulation they submitted a request for Internal Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 582/2012 of 2 July 2012⁴ approving the active substance "bifenthrin", in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. In their request the applicants referred to the case law of the General Court, through which an important question with respect to the Regulation was settled (Judgments of the General Court of 14 June 2012, Cases T-338/08 and T-396/09). However, the Commission decided, through its in this case contested decision of 26 October 2012, to declare the request for internal review not-admissible in spite of the fact that the earlier decisions of the Commission leading to the two judgments of 14 June 2012, which earlier decisions were entirely similar to the one taken in the current case, were annulled by the General Court given the Court's finding that the Aarhus Regulation was partly unlawful, because it violated the terms of the Aarhus Convention. The European Union is a party to that Convention as are all the Member States of the EU.

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

First, the applicants contend that the Commission wrongfully failed to respect the General Court's Judgments of 14 June 2012 in cases T-338/08, Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission and, T-396/09, Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission, T-396/09.

Second, the applicants contend that the restriction of the Aarhus Regulation to "administrative acts of individual scope" establishes a violation of the European Union's obligation to follow from the Aarhus Convention, in so far as Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 limits the concept of "acts", as used in Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, to "administrative act[s]" defined in Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 as "measure[s] of individual scope".

____________

¹ - 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

² - Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 582/2012 of 2 July 2012 approving the active substance bifenthrin, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 Text with EEA relevance

³ - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC

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).