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 62021TN0297

    Case T-297/21: Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Troy Chemical and Troy v Commission

    OJ C 289, 19.7.2021, p. 44–44 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    19.7.2021   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 289/44

    Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Troy Chemical and Troy v Commission

    (Case T-297/21)

    (2021/C 289/60)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: Troy Chemical Co. BV (Delft, Netherlands) and Troy Corp. (Florham Park, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: D. Abrahams, H. Widemann and Ł. Gorywoda, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claim that the Court should:

    —

    annul the defendant’s Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 of 25 February 2021 (1) in its entirety;

    —

    take such other or further measure as justice may require; and

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

    1.

    		 First plea in law, alleging that, in setting the three-year approval period for carbendazim, the defendant committed an error of law, misused its powers, breached legitimate expectations (derived from applicable guidance), breached the principle of non-discrimination and committed a manifest error of appraisal.

    2.

    		 Second plea in law, alleging that, in reaching the conclusion that ‘specific conditions’ were required to ban biocidal product authorisations for use in paints and plasters to be used outdoors, the defendant committed a manifest error of appraisal and a misuse of its powers.

    3.

    		 Third plea in law, alleging that, in reaching the conclusion that ‘specific conditions’ were required to ban placing on the market of specific treated articles (paints and plasters treated with/incorporating carbendazim) for use outdoors, the defendant committed a manifest error of appraisal as well as an error of law.

    4.

    		 Fourth plea in law, alleging that, in reaching the conclusion that ‘specific conditions’ were required for labelling of paints and plasters treated with/incorporating carbendazim for use outdoors to remind users of a ban on use outdoors, the defendant committed a manifest error of law and fact.

    (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 of 25 February 2021 approving carbendazim as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 7 and 10 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 174-177).

    Top