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
—
(C/2024/5828)
Language of the case: French
Applicants: Collectif des maires anti-pesticides (Sceaux, France), Comité de recherche et d’information indépendantes sur le génie génétique (Criigen) (Paris, France), Agir pour l’environnement (Paris) (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—declare the application admissible and well-founded;
—annul the European Commission’s decision rejecting the applicants’ application to intervene and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2660 of 28 November 2023 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011; (1)
—order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging numerous irregularities vitiating the procedure followed by the Commission;
2.Second plea in law, alleging an error of law vitiating the contested decisions;
3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the cautionary principle;
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission disregarded its own competence and unlawfully delegated to the Member States the responsibility of addressing all the risks associated with the authorisation.
* Language of the case: French.
OJ L, 2023/2660.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5828/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—