- 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-742/20: Action brought on 18 December 2020 — UPL Europe and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0742
62020TN0742
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
15.2.2021
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 53/52
(Case T-742/20)
(2021/C 53/68)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: UPL Europe Ltd (Warrington Cheshire, United Kingdom) and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and P. Sellar, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—declare the application admissible and well-founded;
—annul the Commission’s Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance mancozeb, 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 (1) (‘the Contested Act’); and,
—order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that an essential procedural requirement has been infringed by a failure to comply with the procedure in Articles 11 to 14 of Regulation 844/2012. (2)
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the assessment procedure has been further vitiated by an infringement of the applicants’ rights of defence.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the assessment procedure was vitiated by an infringement of the principle of sound and good administration, and the defendant’s failure to act with impartiality in the course of the procedure.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the assessment procedure has been vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in that the defendant took the irrelevant facts of the proposed Reprotoxic 1B classification and the intrinsic properties of the substance’s metabolite ETU into account.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the assessment procedure has been vitiated by an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectation.
*
(1) OJ 2020 L 423, p. 50.
(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 of 18 September 2012 setting out the provisions necessary for the implementation of the renewal procedure for active substances, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 2012 L 252, p. 26).