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 62016CN0044

    Case C-44/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2016 by Dyson Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 November 2015 in Case T-544/13: Dyson Ltd v European Commission

    OJ C 145, 25.4.2016, p. 18–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    25.4.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 145/18

    Appeal brought on 25 January 2016 by Dyson Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 November 2015 in Case T-544/13: Dyson Ltd v European Commission

    (Case C-44/16 P)

    (2016/C 145/23)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Appellant: Dyson Ltd (represented by: E. Batchelor, M. Healy, solicitors, F. Carlin, barrister, A. Patsa, advocate)

    Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The appellant claims that the Court should:

    —

    Annul the contested judgment in its entirety;

    —

    Annul the contested Regulation (1) in its entirety; and

    —

    Order the Commission to pay its own costs and Dyson’s costs in connection with these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Dyson submits the General Court erred in law:

    i.

    First, the General Court mischaracterised Dyson's plea as manifest error rather than lack of legal competence under Art.10(1) of Directive 2010/30/EU (2);

    ii.

    Second, the General Court misinterpreted the scope of the Commission's delegated power under Art. 10(1) of Directive 2010/30/EU;

    iii.

    Third, the General Court infringed Dyson's rights of defence as to facts on which Dyson had no opportunity to provide its views;

    iv.

    Fourth, the General Court distorted and/or disregarded relevant evidence;

    v.

    Fifth, the General Court infringed Art. 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice by not stating reasons for: (i) characterising the applicable legal test as one of manifest error; (ii) concluding Dyson's data was ‘extremely speculative’; (iii) purporting to rely on an unspecified part of an unidentified ‘impact study’; and (iv) disregarding Dyson's reproducibility evidence; and

    vi.

    Sixth, the General Court misapplied the legal test for equal treatment.

    Dyson respectfully requests that the Court annul the contested judgment and grant the order sought before the General Court, annulling Commission Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 (‘Contested Regulation’) as it has sufficient information before it to rule on the substance of the issues raised at first instance.

    (1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners OJ L 192, p. 1

    (2)  Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products OJ L 153, p. 1

    Top