Procedure
1By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 10February 2020, Ascenza Agro, SA and Industrias Afrasa, SA (‘the applicants’) brought an action seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/17 of 10January 2020 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance chlorpyrifos-methyl, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No540/2011 (OJ 2020 L7, p.11) (‘the contested regulation’).
2The Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, and Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) sought leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
3European Crop Care Association (ECCA) sought leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the applicants.
4The applicants and the Commission each applied for confidential treatment of certain information contained in the application initiating proceedings, and in the annexes to that application, to the defence and to the reply.
5By orders of the President of the Seventh Chamber of 26November 2020, all the interveners were granted leave to intervene. In accordance with Article144(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, those orders provisionally limited the communication of the procedural documents to the interveners to their non-confidential versions, pending any objections to the applications for confidential treatment.
6By letter of 29January 2021, ECCA raised objections to the Commission’s application for confidential treatment in so far as it concerns the entire plea relating to the vote of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (‘the SCoPAFF’) set out in paragraphs124 to 129 of the application initiating proceedings (‘the application for confidential treatment at issue’).
7By letter of 24September 2021, the Court requested the Commission to inform the Court whether it intended to maintain the application for confidential treatment at issue, in view of the fact that some of the information in respect of which that application was submitted was set out in other documents in the file which had been brought to the attention of the interveners. The Court also requested the Commission to state the legal basis for that application in the event of the latter intending to maintain its application.
8By letter of 11October 2021, the Commission withdrew most of the application for confidential treatment at issue, with the exception of certain information set out in paragraph127 of the application initiating proceedings.
9By letter of 12November 2021, the Court in essence asked ECCA whether it maintained its objections, in view of the fact that the Commission had withdrawn most of the application for confidential treatment at issue.
10By letter of 25November 2021, ECCA stated that it was maintaining its objections in respect of the part of the application for confidential treatment at issue which the Commission had not withdrawn (‘the remainder of the application for confidential treatment at issue’).