This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0630
Case T-630/16: Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Dehtochema Bitumat v European Chemicals Agency
Case T-630/16: Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Dehtochema Bitumat v European Chemicals Agency
Case T-630/16: Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Dehtochema Bitumat v European Chemicals Agency
OJ C 402, 31.10.2016, p. 53–54
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
31.10.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 402/53 |
Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Dehtochema Bitumat v European Chemicals Agency
(Case T-630/16)
(2016/C 402/63)
Language of the case: Czech
Parties
Applicant: Dehtochema Bitumat, s.r.o. (Bělá pod Bezdězem, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Holý, lawyer)
Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul and declare to be invalid the decision of the European Chemicals Agency of 7 July 2016, according to which the applicant is to continue to be considered a large enterprise and as a result of which the applicant is not entitled to the fee reduction for a medium-sized enterprise, and allow the implementation of that decision to be deferred. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
According to the applicant, the defendant by the abovementioned decision and its actions misused its power and infringed the principles of legality and legal certainty.
The applicant claims that in verifying the status of a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME), the defendant incorrectly assessed the independence of the applicant’s enterprise and incorrectly included in the calculation a number of employees and an amount of the applicant’s enterprise’s annual turnover plus allegedly linked or partner enterprises, which are not linked with the applicant’s enterprise or its partner enterprises under Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 or Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC.
The applicant submits that its declaration as to the incorrect size of the enterprise, which it made at the defendant’s request dated 2 June 2016, was essentially made with confidence in the defendant’s assessment and with the promise of a lower fee.
The applicant points out that its registration had been suspended and it had expressly informed the defendant that it has not produced the relevant products (substances subject to registration) since 2011.
The applicant claims that it follows from Article 13(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 that the right to a fee reduction on registration arises where it is possible to demonstrate such an entitlement and that it is thus appropriate, contrary to what is contended by the defendant, to allow the applicant to establish that entitlement.