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 62013TN0466

Case T-466/13: Action brought on 28 August 2013 — Hermann Trollius v ECHA

Information about publishing Official Journal not found, p. 44–44 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Information about publishing Official Journal not found, p. 42–42 (HR)

9.11.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/44

Action brought on 28 August 2013 — Hermann Trollius v ECHA

(Case T-466/13)

2013/C 325/72

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hermann Trollius GmbH (Lauterhofen, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and J. Schrotz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul ECHA’s decision No SME (2013) 0191 of 31 January 2013, as well as ECHA’s invoice No 10035033 of 4 February 2013; and

—

Order the Defendant to bear all costs including the Applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging the Defendant’s lack of competence.

—

The Applicant submits that the defendant has not been competent to adopt the contested decision SME (2013) 0191, because neither Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (1) nor Regulation (EC) 340/2008 (2) entitles the Defendant to issue a separate decision as to whether a registrant complies with the SME criteria.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 104(1) of the Reach Regulation in connection with Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 (3).

—

The Applicant submits that in its entire communication with the Applicant, the Defendant disregarded its obligation to address a person subject to the sovereignty of a Member State in the official language of that state, and that this breach of law has prevented the Applicant from fulfilling the requirements demanded of him with regard to proving its status as a small enterprise.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Applicant in fact is a small enterprise according to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC (4), and so the contested decisions are wrong on the substance.

(1)  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), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, 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 (Reach Regulation)

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(3)  EEC Council: Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community

(4)  Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises

Top