ARTICLE
21 October 2015

Two Applicants Object To Their Active Substance Being Listed As A Candidate For Substitution

F
Fieldfisher

Contributor

Fieldfisher  logo

Fieldfisher is a European law firm known for its market-leading practices in technology, financial services, energy, and life sciences. With a focus on client collaboration, innovation, and social responsibility, the firm integrates cutting-edge legal technologies and provides tailored solutions. Fieldfisher’s global presence spans Europe, the US, China, and international partner firms, allowing seamless cross-border services. Recognized for excellence, Fieldfisher holds high rankings in dispute resolution, M&A, and IP, and has a strong commitment to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) leadership. The firm operates with over 1,800 professionals across 23 offices in 12 countries.

In case T-296/15, Industria Quimicas del Valles v Commission, the applicant requested the Court to disapply parts of Regulation 1107/2009 which set the criteria for creating a list of substances that are candidates for substitution.
European Union Antitrust/Competition Law

In case T-296/15, Industria Quimicas del Valles v Commission, the applicant requested the Court to disapply parts of Regulation 1107/2009 (the "PPPR") which set the criteria for creating a list of substances that are candidates for substitution. The applicant also requested the Court to annul Regulation 2015/408 (the "Implementing Regulation") insofar as it includes metalaxyl in the list of candidates for substitution.

The applicant claims the PPPR is unlawful because:

  • it breaches the precautionary principle as the substitution criteria are based on hypothetical risks that are not objectively substantiated;
  • it breaches the principle of proportionality in that it goes beyond what is strictly necessary to achieve protection;
  • it distorts competition by promoting substitutions; and
  • it infringes the principle that reasons must be stated in relation to the criterion of "a significant proportion of non-active isomers".

The applicant further claimed the Implementing Regulation breaches the duty to state reasons by failing to justify scientifically the inclusion of metalaxyl and the principle of proportionality in reducing risks to health and the environment.

In case T-310/15, European Union Copper Task Force v Commission, the applicant requested the court to annul the Implementing Regulation insofar as it includes copper compounds in the list of candidates for substitution. The applicant claims that:

  • scientific evidence indicates that the criterion persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity ("PBT") is not appropriate for copper;
  • the application of PBT criteria to inorganic substances is not consistent with other pieces of chemical regulatory legislation;
  • the PPPR has misinterpreted the precautionary principle by applying PBT criteria to copper compounds; and
  • the Commission has infringed the principle of proportionality by including copper compounds in the scope of the Implementing Regulation.

Both actions were brought on 5 June 2015. Judgment is awaited in both cases.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More