EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-337/18: Action brought on 1st of June 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0337

62018TN0337

June 1, 2018
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

(Case T-337/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Pareva (Saint Martin de Crau, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

annul the European Commission’s Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/619 (1) of 20 April 2018 not approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 under Regulation 528/2012 (2) (the ‘Contested Decision’); and

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The applicant submits that the Contested Decision was adopted by the defendant in violation of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), the EU secondary legislation and the principles of EU law. Therefore, the applicant seeks annulment of the Contested Decision on the following three grounds:

1.First plea in law, alleging substantive procedural errors:

the defendant has failed to follow procedural steps that were required of it prior to adopting the Contested Decision. The defendant has infringed substantive procedural rules of Article 6(7)(a) and Article 6(7)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 1062/2014 (3) which, if they had been respected, could have led to a different outcome.

2.Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment:

The defendant has committed a manifest error of assessment by taking into account irrelevant factors in its assessment of PHMB and by failing to give sufficient and due weight to factors which are specific and relevant to the applicant's PHMB.

3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of fundamental principles of EU law and of the rights of defence:

The defendant did not guarantee that the applicant was given a full, proper and effective opportunity to submit comments during the procedure.

(1) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/619 of 20 April 2018 not approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 (OJ 2018, L 102, p. 21)

(2) 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)

(3) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 of 4 August 2014 on the work programme for the systematic examination of all existing active substances contained in biocidal products referred to in Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014, L 294, p. 1)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia