This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021TN0199
Case T-199/21: Action brought on 30 March 2021 — EurO3zon v ECHA
Case T-199/21: Action brought on 30 March 2021 — EurO3zon v ECHA
Case T-199/21: Action brought on 30 March 2021 — EurO3zon v ECHA
IO C 217, 7.6.2021, p. 60–61
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
7.6.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 217/60 |
Action brought on 30 March 2021 — EurO3zon v ECHA
(Case T-199/21)
(2021/C 217/76)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: EurO3zon (Zemst, Belgium) (represented by: I. de Seze, F. Puel, and L. Marchal, lawyers)
Defendant: European Chemicals Agency
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the defendant’s act to suspend the evaluation of the applicant’s active substance dossier on Ozone (O3), under the Biocidal products Regulation (1), and to combine this evaluation procedure with another applicant’s dossier; and |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted ultra vires and lacked the competence to adopt the contested act as the defendant enjoys no express or implicit power to act in the field of evaluations of biocidal active substances under EU law or mandatory data sharing in the absence of a legal provision.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principle of legal certainty and the applicant’s legitimate expectations.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant operated a discriminatory treatment towards the applicant.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested act failed to state reasons because it did not disclose, in a clear and unequivocal fashion, the reasoning followed by the Agency, in such a way as to enable the applicant to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent court to carry out its review. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested act the defendant infringed the principle of proportionality because it does not bring about the appropriate steps for attaining the legitimate objectives pursued by it and it goes beyond what is necessary to achieve them.
|
(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 2012 L 167, p. 1).