- 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-605/21: Action brought on 20 September 2021 — TestBioTech v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0605
62021TN0605
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
22.11.2021
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 471/52
(Case T-605/21)
(2021/C 471/74)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the defendant’s decision of 8 July 2021, refusing to revoke or to amend the defendant’s implementing decision (EU) 2021/61 (1), by which Monsanto Europe SA has been permitted, under the GM Regulation (2), to market genetically modified maize MON 87427 x MON 87460 x MON 89034 x MIR162 x NK603 and its sub-combinations in the EU;
—order any other measure deemed appropriate; and
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential impact of gene stacking on gene expression in combination with exposure to drought conditions and/or failed to require an adequate assessment under drought conditions to be conducted.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential impact of gene stacking on gene expression in combination with herbicide applications and/or failed to require an adequate assessment under conditions of repeated and/or high application of herbicide.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential impact of gene stacking on plant composition and agronomic characteristics in combination with exposure to drought conditions and herbicide applications.
*
(1) OJ 2021 L 26, p. 12.
(2) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 1829/2003 of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).