Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62017TN0108

Case T-108/17: Action brought on 17 February 2017 — ClientEarth v Commission

OJ C 121, 18.4.2017, p. 41–42 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/41

Action brought on 17 February 2017 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-108/17)

(2017/C 121/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Jones, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

—

annul the European Commission’s decision, dated 7 December 2016 (‘the Contested Decision’), refusing to review its Decision C(2016) 3549 (‘the Authorisation Decision’) granting to the undertakings VinyLoop Ferrara SpA, Stena Recycling AB, and Plastic Planet srl an authorisation for the use of a chemical known as bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1);

—

annul the Authorisation Decision;

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs; and

—

order any other measure deemed appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the alleged conformity of the application for authorisation of VinyLoop, Stena, and Plastic Planet within the meaning of Article 62 and Article 60(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment under Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 regarding the socio-economic assessment.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment under Article 60(4) and 60(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 regarding the analysis of alternatives.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by a manifest error of law and assessment regarding the application of the precautionary principle in the context of the authorisation process under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

(1)  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).

Top