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-399/24: Action brought on 1 August 2024 – Collectif des maires anti-pesticides and Others v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0399

62024TN0399

August 1, 2024
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/5828

7.10.2024

(Case T-399/24)

(C/2024/5828)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Form of order sought

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.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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)

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