Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T01:17:27.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

(Re)evolution of the Test of Urgency for Interim Relief before the EU General Court – The Case of “Innocuous” Napropamide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Camilla Buchanan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The conditions of urgency for the granting of the interim suspension of a decision concerning the non-inclusion of an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414 should not be applied rigidly and mechanically and must be assessed in light of the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the progress of re-submission under Commission Regulation 33/2008, and be subject to a test of reasonableness (author's headnote).

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 119 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case T-95/09 R United Phosphorus v. Commission, Order of the President of the Court of 28 April 2009, [2009] ECR II-47; Case T-95/09 RII United Phosphorus v. Commission, Order of the President of the Court of 15 January 2010, [2010] ECR II-3; Case T-95/09 RIII United Phosphorus v. Commission, Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2010 (unreported).

2 Commission Decision 2008/902 of 7 November 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance; OJ 2008 L 326/35.

3 Arts. 1–3 of Commission Decision 2008/902.

4 Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that Directive but have not been included into its Annex I; OJ 2008 L 15/5, hereinafter referred to as “Commission Regulation 33/2008”.

5 Consolidated Version of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; OJ 2010 C 177/37.

6 Order of the President in Case C-445/00 R Austria v. Council [2001] ECR I-1461, para. 73.

7 Order of the President in Case T-346/06 R IMS v. Commission [2007] ECR II-1781, para. 121, and the case law cited; Order of the President in Case C-60/08 P(R) Cheminova and Others v. Commission [2009] ECR I-43, para. 62.

8 Order in Case T-346/06 R IMS v. Commission, supra note 7, para. 123 and the case law cited therein; Order of the President in Case T-31/07 R Du Pont v. Commission [2007] ECR II-2767, para. 144, and the case law cited therein; Order of the President in Case T-326/07 R Cheminova and Others v. Commission [2007] ECR II- 4877, para. 97, and the case law cited therein.

9 Order in Case T-326/07 R Cheminova and Others v. Commission, supra note 8, para. 97, and the case law cited.

10 Order of the President in Case C-471/00 P(R) Commission v. Cambridge Healthcare Supplies [2001] ECR I-2865, para. 113.

11 Order of the President in Case T-475/07 R Dow AgroSciences and Others v. Commission [2008] ECR II-92, para. 71; Case T-326/07 R Cheminova and Others v. Commission, supra note 8, para. 99; Order of the President in Case T-349/07 R FMC Chemical Sprl and Others v. Commission [2007] ECR II-169, para. 100.

12 Case T-31/07 R Du Pont v. Commission, supra note 8, paras. 151 and 161. This case concerned the decision to include flusilazole in Annex I on a restricted basis for only 18 months. The Commission argued that damage was not imminent as the period of inclusion could hypothetically be extended. The President of the Court was not swayed by that argument and held that the imminence of the damage could not be ruled out.

13 Case T-475/07 R Dow AgroSciences and Others v. Commission, supra note 11, para. 75; upheld on appeal by Order of the President of 15 December 2009 in Case C-391/08 P(R) Dow AgroSciences and Others v. Commission (unreported), paras. 73–82; Case T-326/07 R Cheminova and Others v. Commission, supra note 8, para. 121, upheld on appeal in Case C-60/08 P Cheminova and Others v. Commission, supra note 7, paras. 62–76.

14 Case T-475/07 R Dow AgroSciences and Others v. Commission, supra note 11, para. 72; Case T-326/07 R Cheminova and Others v. Commission, supra note 8, para. 100; Case T-349/07 R FMC Chemical Sprl and Others v. Commission, supra note 11, para. 101.

15 Case T-326/07 R Cheminova and Others v. Commission, supra note 8, para. 100, upheld on appeal in Case C-60/08 P Cheminova and Others v. Commission, supra note 7, para. 64.

16 Case T-31/07 R Du Pont v. Commission, supra note 8, para. 196, and the case law cited; Case T-475/07 R Dow AgroSciences and Others v. Commission, supra note 11, para. 77.

17 Case T-475/07 R Dow AgroSciences and Others v. Commission, supra note 11, para. 87; Case T-326/07 R Cheminova and Others v Commission, supra note 8, para. 121.

18 Order of the President of 30 April 2010 in Case T-71/10 R Xeda v. Commission, unreported, para. 55.

19 Case T-326/07 R Cheminova and Others v. Commission, supra note 8, para. 120.

20 Case T-326/07 R Cheminova and Others v. Commission, supra note 8, para. 129, and the subsequent appeal in Case C-60/08 P Cheminova and Others v. Commission, supra note 7, paras. 67– 68.

21 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, operative Arts. 1 and 2.

22 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, para. 64.

23 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, para. 67.

24 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, para. 68.

25 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, para. 69.

26 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, para. 71.

27 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, para. 73.

28 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, para. 74.

29 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, para. 77.

30 Ibid.

31 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, para. 78.

32 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, para. 79.

33 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, para. 81.

34 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, para. 82.

35 Case T-95/09 R, supra note 1, paras. 85–87.

36 Case T-95/09 RII, supra note 1, paras. 1–16.

37 Case T-95/05 RIII, supra note 1, paras. 11–15.

38 Case T-95/09 RIII, supra note 1, paras. 16–18.

39 Case T-95/09 RIII, supra note 1, para. 20.

40 Jaeger, Marc, “Le référé devant the président du Tribunal de l’Union européene depuis septembre 2007”, Journal de droit européen (Septembre 2010), pp. 197 et sqq., at pp. 207–208 (paras. 65 and 71)Google Scholar.

41 Commission Directive 2010/83/EU of 30 November 2010 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include napropamide as active substance, OJ 2010 L 315/29.