Action brought on 18 February 2013 — Calestep v ECHA

(Case T-89/13)

2013/C 108/82

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Calestep, SL (Estepa, Espana) (represented by: E. Cabezos Mateos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should, applying all the steps of the procedure, uphold the application and annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to which the application relates.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present proceedings, as a result of its classification as a small company, has been paying the reduced fee referred to in Article 74(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency (OJ 2008 L 107, p. 6), which in turn refer to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36).

Having made checks, the ECHA considered that the applicant cannot be considered to be a small company, as it is part of a group. Upon finding that that company did not fulfil the requirements, the defendant ordered the applicant to pay the balance of the full fee due for a medium-sized company, as well as an administrative charge.

In support of its action, the applicant invokes a single plea in law based on failure to comply with two of the requirements of Article 2(2) of the Annex to the above Recommendation.

It is suggested in that regard that in order to prevent a company from being considered a small company, it is not enough that that company has more than 50 employees; it is necessary also to show that one of the other requirements under that provision is satisfied, as the provision contains the conjunction ‘and’. This has not been done in the present case.