The Supreme Court declares that a competitor has legal standing to challenge the authorisation of a chemical product which does not comply with EU legislation

The Supreme Court (SC) has held that it is “more than obvious” that the holder of a plant protection product authorisation (in the specific case metalaxyl) has legal standing to challenge the authorisation of a chemical product granted to a competing company. The reason given was that the competing industry had provided documentation essential for the authorisation beyond the non-renewable period provided for by European Union (EU) law.

The SC therefore corrects the criterion used by the Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs and the Administrative Court of Appeals of Madrid, which rejected the standing of the competitor. According to the latter Court, the appellant is committing an abuse of rights by trying to eliminate a competitor from the market, when the competitor already enjoys an authorisation for the same product.

Faced with this reasoning, the SC points out that the appellant’s claim does not imply “instrumentalizing an administrative procedure to expel a competitor, nor to act in an objective defense of legality: the issue is about preventing another company from obtaining an authorisation for products based on the same active substance which is contrary to mandatory rules”. The importance of these EU mandatory rules has been highlighted by the European Court of Justice. This has remarked that not respecting the non-renewable period established by these rules “would jeopardise the uniform nature of that framework and, therefore, the respect for equal treatment between the holders of the abovementioned existing authorisations in force”.