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 62016CN0666

    Case C-666/16 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2016 by Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2016 in Case T-543/15: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency

    OJ C 53, 20.2.2017, p. 26–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    20.2.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 53/26

    Appeal brought on 21 December 2016 by Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2016 in Case T-543/15: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency

    (Case C-666/16 P)

    (2017/C 053/32)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Appellants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (represented by: M. Grunchard, avocate, K. Van Maldegem, avocat, P. Sellar, Advocate)

    Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency

    Form of order sought

    The appellants claim that the Court should:

    —

    set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-543/15; and

    —

    rule on admissibility and refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the merits of the case;

    —

    in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the admissibility of appellants’ application for annulment of the contested act; and, as appropriate, thereafter to rule on the merits of the case;

    —

    order the defendant to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs related to the objection to admissibility before the General Court).

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The appellants submit that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the law which led it to err in law in declaring the appellants’ application for annulment of the contested act inadmissible.

    In particular, the appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its reasoning and in its interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the appellants’ situation. That resulted in the General Court making the following errors in law:

    —

    The General Court erred in its interpretation and application of article 130, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, by entering into the substantive merits of the case;

    —

    The General Court erred in its interpretation and application of article 130, paragraph 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, by failing to reserve its judgment on admissibility until it had heard a full exposition of the arguments on the substance of the case.

    Furthermore, by declaring the appellants’ application inadmissible, the General Court infringed the appellants’ rights of defence, their right of access to justice and the duty to state reasons which pertain to fundamental rights of the individuals and thus reflect general principles of EU law.

    For these reasons the appellants claim that the order of the General Court in Case T-543/15 should be set aside and the Court should rule on admissibility and refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the merits of the case.

    Top