15.2.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/54

(Case T-745/20)

(2021/C 53/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Symphony Environmental Technologies plc (Borehamwood, United Kingdom), Symphony Environmental Ltd (Borehamwood) (represented by: G. Harvey, P. Selley, Solicitors, J. Holmes, QC and J. Williams, Barrister)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—find the defendants non-contractually liable under Article 340(2) TFEU and/or Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in respect of the adoption of Article 5 and Recital 15 (insofar as they apply to oxo-biodegradable plastic) of Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (1);

—consequently, order the defendants to pay the applicants’ compensation in respect of the harm suffered, including any additional harm suffered during the course of the proceedings, and/or likely foreseeable harm, together with interest payable, at an amount and rate to be determined in the course of these proceedings;

—in the alternative, order the parties to produce to the Court, within a reasonable period of time after the date of the judgment, figures as to the amount of the compensation arrived at by agreement between the parties or, in the absence of agreement, to order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submissions with figures;

—in any event, order the defendants to pay the applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.

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 that by their conduct in connection with the preparation and the adoption of the Article 5 prohibition, the defendants have acted unlawfully and committed a breach of their non-contractual duties owed to the applicants that must be made good under Article 340 TFEU and/or Article 41 of the Charter. The applicants allege that the adoption of the Article 5 prohibition is vitiated by procedural errors, unlawfully breaches the principle of proportionality and/or is based on manifest errors of assessment.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that on account of the defendants’ (whether collective or individual) unlawful conduct, the applicants have suffered and/or are likely to suffer damage, including (a) loss of profits; (b) reputational damage; and/or (c) loss of company value.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that there is a sufficient causal connection between the defendants’ (whether collective or individual) unlawful conduct and the damage sustained and/or likely to be sustained by the applicants.

*

Language of the case: English

(1) OJ 2019, L 155, p. 1.