# C_2015178EN.01001401.xml

| 1.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/14

---

Action brought on 5 March 2015 — Deza v ECHA

(Case T-115/15)

(2015/C 178/16)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Dejl, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Decision ED/108/2014 of 12 December 2014 of the Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency updating and supplementing the existing entry for the substance DEHP in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision ED/108/2014 of 12 December 2014 of the Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency updating and supplementing the existing entry for the substance DEHP in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1);

1

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 contested decision is ultra vires
  The applicant claims that the contested decision is ultra vires because (i) the defendant was not entitled under Regulation No 1907/2006 to update, by that decision, the list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV within the meaning of Article 59(1) of that regulation, (ii) the adoption of the contested decision was preceded by a procedure of the defendant that was contrary to Article 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006, and (iii) the contested decision and the procedure of the defendant leading up to its adoption circumvent the procedure laid down for that purpose by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is ultra vires

The applicant claims that the contested decision is ultra vires because (i) the defendant was not entitled under Regulation No 1907/2006 to update, by that decision, the list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV within the meaning of Article 59(1) of that regulation, (ii) the adoption of the contested decision was preceded by a procedure of the defendant that was contrary to Article 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006, and (iii) the contested decision and the procedure of the defendant leading up to its adoption circumvent the procedure laid down for that purpose by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to the principle of legal certainty
  The applicant claims that the contested decision is contrary to the principle of legal certainty because (i) the decision identifies bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) as a substance disrupting endocrinal activity where EU law does not lay down a definition of such a substance or criteria for its identification and where that definition or those criteria are drawn up by the European Commission on the basis of regulations and decisions of the Council and the Parliament, and (ii) that decision was adopted at a time when the procedure was still ongoing, albeit at an advanced stage, for authorisation of the substance DEHP identified as a substance toxic for reproduction under Article 57(c) of Regulation No 1907/2006. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to the principle of legal certainty

The applicant claims that the contested decision is contrary to the principle of legal certainty because (i) the decision identifies bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) as a substance disrupting endocrinal activity where EU law does not lay down a definition of such a substance or criteria for its identification and where that definition or those criteria are drawn up by the European Commission on the basis of regulations and decisions of the Council and the Parliament, and (ii) that decision was adopted at a time when the procedure was still ongoing, albeit at an advanced stage, for authorisation of the substance DEHP identified as a substance toxic for reproduction under Article 57(c) of Regulation No 1907/2006.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is not founded on convincing and objective scientific findings
  The applicant claims that the contested decision is unlawful because it is not founded on convincing and objective scientific findings showing that DEHP satisfies all the criteria laid down in Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is not founded on convincing and objective scientific findings

The applicant claims that the contested decision is unlawful because it is not founded on convincing and objective scientific findings showing that DEHP satisfies all the criteria laid down in Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights and the principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
  The applicant submits that the contested decision and the procedure of the defendant leading up to its adoption infringe its rights and the principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the principle of legal certainty, the right to a fair trial and the right to peaceful enjoyment of property. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights and the principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The applicant submits that the contested decision and the procedure of the defendant leading up to its adoption infringe its rights and the principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the principle of legal certainty, the right to a fair trial and the right to peaceful enjoyment of property.

---

(1)  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 an 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).

1

---