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 62015TN0669

Case T-669/15: Action brought on 09 October 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann e.a. v ECHA

IO C 48, 8.2.2016, p. 80–81 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/80

Action brought on 09 October 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann e.a. v ECHA

(Case T-669/15)

(2016/C 048/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany), Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim, Germany), Schülke & Mayr GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany), Diversey Europe Operations BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

—

annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency concerning the inclusion of the company BASF on the list of active substances and suppliers provided by Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 (1); and

—

order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants submit that, by allowing a company to be included on the list provided by Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 in respect of a given substance, ECHA has failed to apply the law. Its failures in that regard are founded on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that ECHA has misapplied the rules regarding the requirement that the company submit a complete dossier under Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that ECHA has treated companies, which were in the same situation, differently.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that contrary to the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, ECHA has failed to ensure that there is a level playing field between those companies that have participated in the review programme of the given substance and those that have been free-riders.

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ L 167, p. 1).

Top