- 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-436/17: Action brought on 12 July 2017 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0436
62017TN0436
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
11.9.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 300/33
(Case T-436/17)
(2017/C 300/41)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium), The International Chemical Secretariat (Gothenburg, Sweden), International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) (Gothenburg) (represented by: A. Jones, Barrister)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—declare the application admissible and well founded;
—annul Commission’s decision C(2017) 2914 final, dated 2 May 2017, refusing to review the Commission decision C(2016)5644 granting an authorization for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulphate red under 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) (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1);
—annul Commission decision C(2016)5644;
—order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs, and
—order any other measure deemed appropriate.
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 decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the alleged conformity of the application for authorisation of DCC Maastricht BV within the meaning of Articles 62 and 60(7) of the REACH regulation.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment under Article 60(4) of the REACH regulation regarding the socio-economic assessment.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment under Articles 60(4) and 60(5) of the REACH regulation regarding the analysis of alternatives.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the application of general principles of EU law, including the duty to state reasons and the precautionary principle, in the context of the authorisation process under the REACH regulation.