(Plant protection products– Active substance thiram– Non-renewal of approval– Regulation No1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation No844/2012

203It should be noted that the principle of equal treatment precludes comparable situations from being treated differently and different situations from being treated identically, unless such treatment is objectively justified (judgments of 25October 2005, Groupe Danone v Commission, T‑38/02, EU:T:2005:367, paragraph453, and of 12April 2013, Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission, T‑31/07, not published, EU:T:2013:167, paragraph310).

204In the present case, by arguing that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment, the applicants rely on the assessment of the fungicidal compounds copper and methoxyfenozide, as well as on some of their possible similarities with thiram (see paragraph163 above). However, it is incumbent on the applicants to specify and demonstrate which situation is comparable to another situation which has been treated differently.

205By merely identifying common areas of concern with thiram and the lack of specific guidance for assessing naturally occurring metals such as copper, the applicants do not provide any demonstration to that effect. They do not provide any evidence that the analysis of the fungicidal compounds of copper and methoxyfenozide, their individual merits and the scientific background against which those substances were assessed are comparable in all those respects concerning thiram.

206Therefore, the sixth plea in law must be rejected.

207In view of all the above, the action must be dismissed in its entirety.

V.Costs

208Under Article134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

209Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in the present action, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission.

210Since Taminco was unsuccessful in the proceedings for interim measures and the costs were reserved (see paragraph40 above), it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in that procedure, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)

hereby:

1.Dismisses the action;

2.Orders Taminco BVBA and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain Ltd to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present action;

3.Orders Taminco to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the context of the proceedings for interim measures.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 February 2022.

Table of contents

I. Legal framework

A. Directive 91/414/EEC

B. Regulation No1107/2009

C. Implementing Regulation No844/2012

II. Background to the dispute

A. First approval of thiram at EU level

B. Renewal of the approval of thiram at EU level

III. Procedure and forms of order sought

IV. Law

A. The jurisdiction of the Court to deal with certain claims made in the application

B. The application for annulment

1. Preliminary remarks

(a) The scope of the Court’s review

(b) The burden of proof

2. The fifth plea in law, alleging failure to respect the rights of the defence

3. The first plea in law, alleging a formal defect in that the Commission failed to take account of the withdrawal of the application for renewal of the approval of the use of thiram by foliar spraying

4. The second and third pleas in law, alleging, respectively, a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article4(5) of Regulation No1107/2009

5. The fourth plea in law, alleging a proposed classification of thiram ultra vires

6. The sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the precautionary principle, the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment

(a) The alleged violation of the principle of proportionality

(b) The alleged breach of the precautionary principle

(1) Preliminary remarks on the precautionary principle

(2) The Commission’s obligation to examine the benefits and costs

(3) The conduct by the Commission of the review of benefits and costs

(c) The alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment

V. Costs

*Language of the case: English.