- 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-192/22: Action brought on 13 April 2022 — Polynt v ECHA
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0192
62022TN0192
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
7.6.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 222/33
(Case T-192/22)
(2022/C 222/55)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Polynt SpA (Scanzorosciate, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and S. Abdel-Qader, lawyers)
Defendant: European Chemicals Agency
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—declare the application admissible and well-founded;
—annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency, sent by letter of 4 February 2022 (FUP- DEV-01-21200655590-58-0000-CCH-1-2_FTR_NOTIF), informing of a failure to respond to a dossier evaluation decision;
—declare — or order ECHA to adopt a new measure declaring — that the Applicant is released from the obligation to provide any information to ECHA following the cease of production and consequent unavailability of the substance concerned due to force majeure; and
—order ECHA to pay all costs of these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Defendant breached the principle of force majeure when it held that the cease of manufacture of the substance 1,3-dioxo-2-benzofuran-5-carboxylic acid with nonan-1-ol (EC Number 941-303-6) (hereinafter ‘the substances’) after the adoption of the final compliance check decision for reasons of force majeure does not relieve the Appellant from the obligation to provide the information requested in the initial compliance check decision on the substances.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Defendant breached Article 50(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (REACH Regulation).
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Defendant breached Articles 5 and 6 of the REACH Regulation.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Defendant infringed the principle of proportionality.
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).