EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0620
Case T-620/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Marchi Industriale v ECA
Case T-620/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Marchi Industriale v ECA
Case T-620/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Marchi Industriale v ECA
OJ C 24, 25.1.2014, p. 36–37
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
25.1.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 24/36 |
Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Marchi Industriale v ECA
(Case T-620/13)
2014/C 24/68
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Marchi Industriale (Florence, Italy) (represented by: M. Baldassarri and F. Donati, lawyers)
Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECA)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should annul and thereby declare invalid Decision No SME/2013/3747 of the European Chemicals Agency, thus rendering inoperative each of the effects of that decision, including the annulment of the invoices issued for the recovery of higher taxes and penalties purportedly owing.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action is brought against the decision of the European Chemicals Agency that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements for being regarded as a small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), 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), denying the applicant the benefits provided for in that regulation and providing that it is to pay the fees and charges allegedly owing.
The applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging total failure to state reasons, in so far as, notwithstanding the detailed documentary information provided to challenge the calculation criteria used to determine the size of the undertaking, the defendant failed to take any account the arguments put forward. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that data relating to the company Essemar SpA, in which Marchi Industriale has a holding, was incorrectly taken into account.
|