EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-725/15: Action brought on 11 December 2015 — Chemtura Netherlands/EFSA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0725

62015TN0725

December 11, 2015
With Google you find a lot.
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

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/33

(Case T-725/15)

(2016/C 068/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chemtura Netherlands (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare its application admissible and well-founded;

annul the European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’) Decision of 10 December 2015 concerning the publication of certain parts of the EFSA Conclusion on the Peer Review on the review of the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron regarding the metabolite PCA in respect of which the applicant claimed confidentiality pursuant to 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);

order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses 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 an infringement of Regulation 1107/2009 and the fundamental right to the protection of business secrets.

The applicant questions the legal basis on which the defendant concluded that it had a duty to publish its conclusions. Even if the publication of EFSA conclusions taken under Article 21 of Regulation 1107/2009 was legitimate, the defendant has violated Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 by publishing confidential information.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appraisal

The applicant submits that the defendant based its decision on an inaccurate understanding of the facts and related science, which led to a manifest error of appraisal of their confidentiality claims.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a breach of fundamental principles of EU law: right of defence and the principle of sound administration

The applicant was not given a chance to comment on documents on which the EFSA’s conclusions are based.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of EFSA’s own duties

The defendant has not based its assessment on all available scientific evidence, whereas it is under an obligation to produce work of the highest scientific quality.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of legitimate expectations

The applicant is in ongoing discussions with the Commission and correspondence from the Commission reflects that the applicant would be given a chance to comment on the EFSA conclusions as part of the Commission’s review process. The applicant’s comments should be taken into account before the publication of the EFSA conclusion.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia