Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV, formerly Chemtura Netherlands BV v European Food Safety Authority (T-725/15)
I. Legal framework
A.EU legislation governing the procedu…
2. Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002
5

Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV, formerly Chemtura Netherlands BV v European Food Safety Authority (T-725/15)

law://eu/cjeu/2015/t-725-15/para_5@2026-11-13

Key facts

Court: General Court · Fourth Chamber
Case: T-725/15 · ECLI:EU:T:2018:977
Decided: 14 Dec 2018
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV
Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
Rapporteur: I. Reine
Bench: 3 judges
H. Kanninen, L. Calvo-Sotelo Ibáñez-Martín, I. Reine
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62015TJ0725

Topics

Plant health legislation

Connections

Cited by 1: eClear AG v European Commission (T-127/23)
Cites 20: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Firma E. Merck v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (292/82); Regulation (EC) No 178/2002; Skatteverket v David Hedqvist (C-264/14); Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009; Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market; Pfizer Animal Health SA v Council of the European Union (T-13/99); Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities (T-201/04); Commission Directive 2008/69/EC of 1 July 2008 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include clofentezine, dicamba, difenoconazole, diflubenzuron, imazaquin, lenacil, oxadiazon, picloram and pyriproxyfen as active substances (Text with EEA relevance); Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v European Commission (T-457/09); Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd and Sumika Fine Chemicals Co. Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (T-22/02, T-23/02); Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002; Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG v Commission of the European Communities (T-198/03); Génesis Seguros Generales Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros (Génesis) v Boys Toys SA and Administración del Estado (C-190/10); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/855; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Commission of the European Communities (C-180/96); Commission Directive 2010/39/EU of 22 June 2010 amending Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the specific provisions relating to the active substances clofentezine, diflubenzuron, lenacil, oxadiazon, picloram and pyriproxyfen (Text with EEA relevance ); Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000; Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health (283/81); Mory SA and Others v European Commission (C-33/14 P)

History · 1 version

14 Dec 2018Reading

Judgment of 14 Dec 2018

5Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 of 14 August 2002 laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 and amending Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 (OJ 2002 L 224, p. 23) concerns the continued evaluation of active substances.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.