8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/50

(Case T-257/07)

(2007/C 211/95)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, R. Loosli and A.-L. During, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—Annul paragraph (3) of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 727/2007 of 26 June 2007 (1) amending Annexes I, III, VII and X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (2), to the extent that it introduces, into Chapter A of Annex VII, paragraphs 2.3(b)(iii), 2.3(d), and 4;

—Alternatively, if the Court were to rule that this application for partial annulment is inadmissible, annul Regulation No 727/2007 in its entirety;

—Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In this action, the applicant applies for the partial annulment, or alternatively the entire annulment, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 727/2007 of 26 June 2007, authorising less restrictive measures of surveillance and eradication in relation to certain spongiform encephalopathies, as compared with those laid down by Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the contested provisions must be annulled because they infringe the precautionary principle in relation to both the assessment and management of the risk.

The applicant claims that the Commission has failed to have regard to the precautionary principle at the stage of assessment of the risk by ignoring the scientific uncertainties which, in its opinion, continue to surround both the risk of transmission to human beings of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies other than bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and the reliability of the tests on which the Commission based its decision to adopt the contested Regulation.

The applicant claims that the Commission has also failed to have regard to the precautionary principle at the stage of management of the risk in that the contested provisions are not capable of containing the risk and may even increase it. The applicant considers, in addition, that the increase in the risk caused by the contested provisions cannot be justified by the advantages expected from them.

* * *

(1) OJ L 165, p. 8.

(2) OJ L 147, p. 1.