- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-71/10: Action brought on 18 February 2010 — Xeda International and Pace International v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0071
62010TN0071
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
17.4.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 100/62
(Case T-71/10)
2010/C 100/92
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Xeda International (Saint Andiol, France) and Pace International LLC (Seattle, United States of America) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants seek the annulment of Commission’s decision No 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council directive No 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance [notified under number C(2009) 9262] (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79).
The applicants claim that, as a result of the contested decision, the first applicant will no longer be allowed to sell diphenylamine and diphenylamine-based products in the European Union and will lose its product registrations in the Member States effective as of 30 May 2010.
The applicants submit that the contested decision is unlawful because it is based on an underlying assessment of diphenylamine that is scientifically and legally flawed. According to the applicants, it infringes the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and secondary EU legislation.
In summary, the applicants contend that the contested decision bans the use of diphenylamine in plant protection products on the basis of three scientific concerns mentioned in recital 5 thereof, each of which was either adequately addressed by the applicants or was not a concern justifying non-inclusion.
Further, the applicants claim that the Commission infringed the applicants’ right of defence inasmuch as it prevented them from relying on the possibility to withdraw and re-submit a new dossier while benefiting from a longer phase-out period, as it was the case for other substances belonging to the same regulatory process.