Judgment of the General Court Seventh Chamber, 15 February 2023, UPL Europe and Indofil Industries Netherlands v Commission, T-742/20

• Date: 15 February 2023
• Year: 2023

22

visibility condition. Accordingly, the assessment of the normal use of a complex product cannot be

based solely on the intention of the manufacturer of the component part or of the complex product.

Second, as regards the question of what use of a complex product by the end user constitutes

‘normal use’ within the meaning of Article 3(4) of Directive 98/71, the Court takes the view that the fact

that that provision does not specify what type of use of the product is covered by that concept and

refers, generally, to the use of such a product by the end user supports a broad interpretation of that

concept. In that regard, in view of the fact that, in practice, the use of a product in its principal

function often requires various acts which may be performed before or after the product has fulfilled

that principal function, the Court concludes that the normal use of a complex product covers all those

acts, with the exception of those which are expressly excluded, namely acts relating to maintenance,

servicing and repair work.

Consequently, the concept of ‘normal use’ must cover acts relating to the customary use of a product

as well as other acts which may reasonably be carried out during such use and which are customary

from the point of view of the end user, including those which may be performed before or after the

product has fulfilled its principal function, such as the storage and transportation of that product.

In the light of those considerations, the Court holds that the requirement of visibility of designs

applied to or incorporated in a product which constitutes a component part of a complex product

must be assessed in the light of a situation of normal use of the complex product, so that the

component part concerned, once it has been incorporated into that product, remains visible during

such use. To that end, the visibility of a component part of a complex product during its normal use

by the end user must be assessed from the perspective of that user as well as from the perspective of

an external observer. That normal use must cover acts performed during the principal use of a

complex product as well as acts which must customarily be carried out by the end user in connection

with such use, with the exception of maintenance, servicing and repair work.

2. PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber), 15 February 2023, UPL Europe and

Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission, T-742/20

Link to the judgment as published in extract form

Plant protection products – Active substance mancozeb – Non-renewal of approval – Regulation (EC)

No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 – Procedure for assessing the application

for renewal of approval of an active substance – Designation of a new rapporteur Member State due to

the withdrawal of the previous rapporteur Member State from the European Union – Rights of the

defence – Principle of sound administration – Manifest error of assessment – Procedure for harmonised

classification and labelling – Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 – Legitimate expectations

Mancozeb, an active substance used as a fungicide to combat pathogens affecting potato, vine, pome

fruit, tree fruit, carrot and onion crops, was first approved in the European Union in 2005.

31

Applications for renewal of that approval were submitted in 2013 and 2014.

31

The active substance was included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection

products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) by Commission Directive 2005/72/EC of 21 October 2005 amending Council Directive

91/414/EEC to include chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos-methyl, mancozeb, maneb, and metiram as active substances (OJ 2005 L 279, p. 63).