Two applicants object to their active substance being listed as a candidate for substitution
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.