EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-629/20: Action brought on 15 October 2020 — Delifruit v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0629

62020TN0629

October 15, 2020
With Google you find a lot.
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

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/61

(Case T-629/20)

(2020/C 433/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delifruit, SA (Guayaquil, Ecuador) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, P. Sellar and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

partially annul the Contested Act, as amended by Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085, in so far as it establishes the maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos for bananas at 0,01 mg/kg; and,

order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085 of 23 July 2020 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl in or on certain products (1), as amended by Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085 (2).

In support of the action, the applicant alleges the Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment by not taking into account a relevant factor (a substantive study disproving one of the alleged reasons for the adoption of the maximum residue limit) in its assessment leading to the adoption of the contested act, and, in so doing, has also infringed Article 14(2) (a) and (f) of Regulation 396/2005 which require that all relevant and available data be taken into account by it.

(1)

OJ 2020 L 239, p. 7

(2)

OJ 2020 L 245, p. 31

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia