Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62017TN0436

Case T-436/17: Action brought on 12 July 2017 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission

OJ C 300, 11.9.2017, p. 33–34 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

11.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/33

Action brought on 12 July 2017 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission

(Case T-436/17)

(2017/C 300/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium), The International Chemical Secretariat (Gothenburg, Sweden), International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) (Gothenburg) (represented by: A. Jones, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

declare the application admissible and well founded;

—

annul Commission’s decision C(2017) 2914 final, dated 2 May 2017, refusing to review the Commission decision C(2016)5644 granting an authorization for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulphate red under regulation (EC) no 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1);

—

annul Commission decision C(2016)5644;

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs, and

—

order any other measure deemed appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the alleged conformity of the application for authorisation of DCC Maastricht BV within the meaning of Articles 62 and 60(7) of the REACH regulation.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment under Article 60(4) of the REACH regulation regarding the socio-economic assessment.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment under Articles 60(4) and 60(5) of the REACH regulation regarding the analysis of alternatives.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the application of general principles of EU law, including the duty to state reasons and the precautionary principle, in the context of the authorisation process under the REACH regulation.
Top