24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/43

(Case T-416/06)

(2007/C 42/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS (Saint Didier, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—Order the defendant, if necessary by means of an interlocutory order, to correct the material mistake in Annex I, Part A, and replace ‘0.75 g’ with ‘0.75 Kg’;

—order the annulment of the following provisions of Directive 2006/132:

Article 3(2) : ‘by 30 June 2008’

Annex I : ‘30 June 2008’

Annex I, Part A : ‘on the following crops’

‘— cucumbers in greenhouses (closed hydroponic systems),’

‘— plums (for processing)’

Annex I, Part B : ‘Member States shall request the submission of further studies to address the potential endocrine disrupting properties of procymidone within two years after the adoption of the Test Guidelines on endocrine disruption by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). They shall ensure that the notifier at whose request procymidone has been included in this Annex provide such studies to the Commission within two years of the adoption of the above test guidelines.’

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1) provides that Member States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/132 amending Directive 91/414 to include procymidone as active substance (2) insofar as this directive i) only provides for a limited inclusion of procymidone in Annex I to Directive 91/414, ii) provides for specific conditions on the authorised use and iii) foresees a limited period of 18 months for the validity of the limited inclusion in Annex I.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the contested directive violates Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 5(1) and (4) of Directive 91/414. Furthermore, the applicant contends that the contested directive is inconsistent with Article 5(5) of Directive 91/414 and that the Commission therefore exceeded the limits of its discretion.

The applicant moreover claims that the contested directive is procedurally flawed as the Commission is obliged to adopt the measures as they were proposed to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and the Council without amending them before their final adoption.

Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the contested directive violates the applicant's legitimate expectations, as well as the principles of sound administration, subsidiarity, proportionality, legal certainty, equal treatment and excellence and independence of scientific advice. The applicant also contends that the contested directive is not providing sufficient justification and that the duty to state reasons is therefore infringed.

Finally, the applicant submits that the contested directive encroaches upon its right to conduct business activities and interferes with its right of property.

(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

(2) Commission Directive 2006/132/EC of 11 December 2006 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include procymidone as active substance (OJ 2006 L 349, p. 22).