Summary:
Original Link:
Original Article:
Case T-384/25: Action brought on 11 June 2025 – PAN Europe v Commission
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s confirmatory decision Ares(2025)2657591, dated 2 April 2025, rejecting the applicant’s request for internal review regarding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2186 (‘the contested decision’);
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on following pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 17(3) TEU (in carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission shall be completely independent) and Articles 6(f) and 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 1(3) and 4 of Regulation 1107/2009:
— a violation of Articles 1(3), 4 and 4(3)(b) of Regulation 1107/2009 where it concerns the ‘one chemical approach’;
— a violation of Articles 1(3), 4 and 4(2)(a) of Regulation 1107/2009 where it concerns cumulative effects;
— a violation of Articles 1(3), 4 and 4(2)(a) of Regulation 1107/2009 where it concerns synergistic effects.
3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 4, 14(1) and 6 of Regulation 1107/2009 and of the obligation to state reasons, including:
— a manifest error of assessment and non-compliance with Articles 4(5), 14(1) and 6 of Regulation 1107/2009;
— a violation of Article 4 of Regulation 1107/2009 with regard to factual inaccurate information underlying the contested decision;
— a violation of Article 4, more specifically Article 4(5) of Regulation 1107/2009 as the contested decision is not based on the ‘current scientific and technical knowledge’;
— a violation of Articles 4(5) and 6(f) of Regulation 1107/2009 where it concerns the acceptance of data gaps in the contested decision.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(3)(e) and 4(1) of Regulation 1107/2009 with regard to risks to the environment.
5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1), (2)(a) and (3) of Regulation 1107/2009 regarding pollution by metabolites.
6. Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4, more specifically Article 4(1) and (3), and Article 12(1) of Regulation 1107/2009, in that recent scientific insights have been disregarded (arthropods).