Action brought on 12 April 2024 – Association Générations futures v Commission
(Case T-201/24)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Association Générations futures (Ons-en-Bray, France) (represented by: F. Lafforgue, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 February 2024 to reject the request for internal review for the purpose of Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation as regards Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1446 1 of 12 July 2023 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval periods of the active substances 2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid methylester, acetic acid, aluminium ammonium sulphate, aluminium phosphide, aluminium silicate, calcium carbide, cymoxanil, dodemorph, ethylene, extract from tea tree, fat distillation residues, fatty acids C7-C20, flonicamid (IKI-220), gibberellic acid, gibberellins, halosulfuron-methyl, hydrolysed proteins, iron sulphate, magnesium phosphide, maltodextrin, metamitron, plant oils/clove oil, plant oils/rape seed oil, plant oils/spear mint oil, pyrethrins, sulcotrione, tebuconazole and urea;
order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
First plea in law, based on Article 17 of Regulation 1107/2009. 1 The applicant argues that the condition set out in that article, related to there being reasons beyond the control of the [approval] applicant, is not met in the present case since the applicants, by failing to provide the requested studies, have not dispelled doubts about the safety of the active substance tebuconazole. The length of the extension of the approval of the active substance tebuconazole is thus not justified, having regard to the risks posed by that substance. In addition, sufficient evidence was already available in 2021 to allow the European Commission to take a decision against approving the substance.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the precautionary principle. The applicant submits that the systematic and repeated recourse to Article 17 is contrary to the precautionary principle. In fact, the active substance tebuconazole poses risks which justified the adoption of restrictive measures.
Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration. According to the applicant, the procedure for renewal of the approval of the active substance tebuconazole has extended over a period that is almost the same as the initial approval. The slow pace of that procedure and systematic recourse to Article 17 consequently breaches the principle of good administration.
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirement to state reasons, on the grounds that the regulation in particular provides absolutely no reasoning for the choice of the duration of the extension measure, which is 35 months, nor the reasons which have led to such a long and burdensome assessment.
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is incompatible with the objective of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. In fact, the adoption of the contested regulation contravenes the aforementioned objectives.
____________
1 OJ 2023 L 178, p. 1
1 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 (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).