|
24.1.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 19/19 |
Appeal brought on 25 November 2008 by Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Alfa Agricultural Supplies SA, Aragonesas Agro, SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2008 in Case T-75/06 Bayer CropScience AG and Others v Commission
(Case C-517/08 P)
(2009/C 19/34)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Alfa Agricultural Supplies SA, Aragonesas Agro, SA (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, avocats)
Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Bayer CropScience AG, European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), Kingdom of Spain
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should, following an oral hearing:
|
— |
set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-75/06; and |
|
— |
annul Commission Decision 2005/864/EC (1) of 2 December 2005 concerning the non-inclusion of endosulfan in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC (2) and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance; or |
|
— |
alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment; and |
|
— |
order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the Court of First Instance). |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for annulment in respect of Commission Decision 2005/864/EC of 2 December 2005 concerning the non-inclusion of endosulfan in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance, the Court of First Instance breached Community law. In particular, the Appellants contend that the Court of First Instance committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the facts and of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellants' situation. That resulted in it making a number of errors in law, in particular:
|
(i) |
in failing to find that the Appellants had been placed in a situation of force majeure by the conduct of the competent authorities such that the failure of the competent authorities to defer the procedural deadlines amounted to a manifest error of assessment; and |
|
(ii) |
in holding that the Appellants' legal and procedural rights had not been infringed. |
(1) OJ L 317, p. 25.
(2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, p. 1).