30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/75

—

Action brought on 17 February 2004 by Sumitomo Chemical (UK) PLC against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-78/04)

(2004/C 106/148)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 February 2004 by Sumitomo Chemical (UK) PLC, London, United Kingdom, represented by Mr K. Van Maldegem and Mr C. Mereu, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—order the annulment of Article 3 (and annex II), Article 4(2), Article 5(3), Article 10(2), second paragraph, Article 11(3), Article 13 and Article 14(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000;

—declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicant of Articles 9(a), 10(3), 11 and 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market;

—declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicant of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products;

—order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the provisional amount of 1 Euro for damages suffered as a result of the adoption and entry into force of the contested measure, as well as any applicable interest, pending the exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

—order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and arguments invoked by the applicant are the same as those invoked in Case T-75/04.

—