22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/40

(Case T-671/13)

2014/C 52/77

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) and Syndicat agricole Confédération paysanne (Bagnolet, France) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—Annul the Commission decision of 9 October 2013 in which the Commission declared inadmissible:

—The request for internal review of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances (OJ 2013 L 139, p. 12);

—The request for internal review of the omission of the Commission to set a complete ban on clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid.

—Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of Article 9(3) of the United Nations Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998 (the Aarhus Convention). The provisions applied by the Commission, Article 10 in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) and (h) of the Aarhus Regulation (1), are incompatible with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. The illegality of these provisions in the Aarhus Regulation should have led the Commission to not applying the criteria referred to in the contested decision and to declare the requests for internal review admissible.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of its obligation to act as Convention compliant as possible. The Commission should have interpreted Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation and in particular the words ‘administrative act’ and ‘administrative omission’ in that provision in conformity with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention and should have left aside the illegal definitions laid down in Article 2(1)(g) and (h) of the Aarhus Regulation. The Commission thus acted in breach of Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation and the obligation to act in a Convention compliant way.

*

Regulation (EC) no 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)