EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0610
Case T-610/17: Action brought on 6 September 2017 — ICL-IP Terneuzen and ICL Europe Coöperatief v Commission
Case T-610/17: Action brought on 6 September 2017 — ICL-IP Terneuzen and ICL Europe Coöperatief v Commission
Case T-610/17: Action brought on 6 September 2017 — ICL-IP Terneuzen and ICL Europe Coöperatief v Commission
OJ C 357, 23.10.2017, p. 30–31
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
23.10.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 357/30 |
Action brought on 6 September 2017 — ICL-IP Terneuzen and ICL Europe Coöperatief v Commission
(Case T-610/17)
(2017/C 357/39)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: ICL-IP Terneuzen, BV (Terneuzen, Netherlands) and ICL Europe Coöperatief UA (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Cana and E. Mullier, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
— |
annul the Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/999 of 13 June 2017 amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2017, L 150, p. 7) as far as it includes nPB on Annex XIV of the REACH Regulation; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings; and |
— |
take such other or further measure as justice may require. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to take into account all relevant facts and breached the principle of sound administration.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation breaches Article 55 of the REACH Regulation and runs contrary to the REACH Regulation’s competitiveness objective, as well as interferes with the right to trade.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission breached the applicants’ rights of defence and breached its obligation to state reasons
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation breaches the applicants’ legitimate expectations.
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation breaches the principle of proportionality.
|
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation breaches the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination
|