- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-543/15: Action brought on 18 September 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann e.a. v ECHA
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0543
62015TN0543
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
7.12.2015
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 406/36
(Case T-543/15)
(2015/C 406/36)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany), Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim), Schülke & Mayr GmbH (Norderstedt), Diversey Europe Operations BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and M. Grunchard, lawyers)
Defendants: 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 Oxea, based in Germany, as active substance supplier on the list provided by Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products;
—order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings; and
—in light of the pending appeal before ECHA’s Appeal Board, stay proceedings in terms of Article 69, and in particular Article 69(d) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, until such time as ECHA’s Appeal Board has decided on the admissibility of the Appeal before it.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants submit that, by allowing a company to be included on 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 the three following 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 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.
2.Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination in that ECHA has treated companies which were in the same situation differently.
3.Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 62, 63 and 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 in that contrary to the requirements of this Regulation, ECHA has failed to ensure that there is a level playing field between those companies that have participated in the review programme of the give substance and those that have been free-riders.