EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017TO0560

Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 November 2018.
Fortischem a.s. v European Parliament and Council of the European Union.
Action for annulment — Environment — Regulation (EU) 2017/852 — Protection of human health and the environment — Prohibition on chlor-alkali production using mercury as an electrode — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Act not of individual concern — Inadmissibility.
Case T-560/17.

Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section

Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 November 2018 –
Fortischem v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑560/17)

(Action for annulment — Environment — Regulation (EU) 2017/852 — Protection of human health and the environment — Prohibition on chlor-alkali production using mercury as an electrode — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Act not of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

1. 

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Concept of a regulatory act — Any act of general scope other than legislative acts

(Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU)

(see para. 47)

2. 

Acts of the institutions — Legal nature — Legislative acts and regulatory acts — Distinguishing criteria — Procedure for the adoption of the act

(see para. 47)

3. 

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Regulation on mercury providing for a prohibition on chlor-alkali production using mercury as an electrode — Action by a holder of a licence for chlor-alkali production by means of mercury cells — Admissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/852, Annex III, part I(d))

(see paras 48-51)

4. 

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Possibility of being individually concerned by a general decision — Conditions — Regulation on mercury providing for a prohibition on chlor-alkali production using mercury as an electrode — Action by a holder of a licence for chlor-alkali production by means of mercury cells — Impossibility to request for an extension of the licence prior to the entry into force of that prohibition — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/852, Annex III, part I(d); European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/75, Art. 15(4); Commission Decision 2013/732)

(see paras 52-56, 73)

5. 

EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation — Derogation from a general rule — Restrictive interpretation

(see para. 70)

6. 

Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Review of legality of EU measures — Procedures — Protection of that right by the EU judicature or by the national courts according to the legal nature of the contested measure — Possibility of using an annulment action or reference for a preliminary ruling on validity

(Arts 6(1), third para., TEU and 19(1) TEU; Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 52(7))

(see paras 92-97)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of letter (d) in Annex III, Part I to Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (OJ 2017 L 137, p. 1).

Operative part

1. 

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. 

There is no longer any need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden.

3. 

Fortischem a.s. is to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

4. 

Fortischem, the Council, the Parliament, the Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden are each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

Top