# C_2019139EN.01010202.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/102

---

Action brought on 21 February 2019 — Dyson and Others v Commission

(Case T-127/19)

(2019/C 139/105)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Dyson Ltd (Malmesbury, United Kingdom) and 14 other applicants (represented by: E. Batchelor, T. Selwyn Sharpe and M. Healy, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | hold the defendant liable for the damage sustained by the applicants as a consequence of the adoption of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013, (1) in the sum of approximately:






  — | EUR 176 100 000, including compensatory interest, for the no-label counterfactual, starting from the entry into force of Delegated Regulation No 665/2013 until 19 January 2019 when labelling regulation was annulled; and/or alternatively |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

hold the defendant liable for the damage sustained by the applicants as a consequence of the adoption of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013, (1) in the sum of approximately:

—

EUR 176 100 000, including compensatory interest, for the no-label counterfactual, starting from the entry into force of Delegated Regulation No 665/2013 until 19 January 2019 when labelling regulation was annulled; and/or alternatively

| — | EUR 127 100 000, including compensatory interest, for the dust-loaded counterfactual, starting from the entry into force of Delegated Regulation No 665/2013 until 19 January 2019 when labelling regulation was annulled; and |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 127 100 000, including compensatory interest, for the dust-loaded counterfactual, starting from the entry into force of Delegated Regulation No 665/2013 until 19 January 2019 when labelling regulation was annulled; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 10(1) of Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 (2) and exceeded its legal competence as permitted by Article 290 TFEU by adopting an empty receptacle testing method in the Delegated Regulation No 665/2013.
  The defendant would have disregarded an essential element of Article 10(1) of Directive 2010/30/EU and would have exceeded its competence contrary to Article 290 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 10(1) of Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 (2) and exceeded its legal competence as permitted by Article 290 TFEU by adopting an empty receptacle testing method in the Delegated Regulation No 665/2013.

The defendant would have disregarded an essential element of Article 10(1) of Directive 2010/30/EU and would have exceeded its competence contrary to Article 290 TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the fundamental principle of equal treatment by adopting Delegated Regulation No 665/2013 that would have unlawfully discriminated between traditional bagged vacuum cleaners and bagless, cyclonic technology such as applicants’, without objective justification. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the fundamental principle of equal treatment by adopting Delegated Regulation No 665/2013 that would have unlawfully discriminated between traditional bagged vacuum cleaners and bagless, cyclonic technology such as applicants’, without objective justification.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the fundamental principle of sound administration and/or its duty to act diligently by adopting an empty receptacle testing method which: (i) would have disregarded an essential element of Directive 2010/30/EU; (ii) would have discriminated against fundamentally different technologies; and (iii) would have failed to carefully and impartially assess the available alternative dust-loaded testing methods at the time. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the fundamental principle of sound administration and/or its duty to act diligently by adopting an empty receptacle testing method which: (i) would have disregarded an essential element of Directive 2010/30/EU; (ii) would have discriminated against fundamentally different technologies; and (iii) would have failed to carefully and impartially assess the available alternative dust-loaded testing methods at the time.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the applicants’ fundamental right to pursue a trade or business.
  The defendant adopted a regulation that would have biased in favour of traditional bagged vacuum cleaners which would lose performance as the receptacle filled with dust, rather than those like applicants’ cyclonic technology-based machines which would maintain their performance throughout use. This restricted applicants’ ability to do business and compete fairly with competitors whose inferior performance when filling with dust would have been masked by the defendant’s label which would have provided for testing in pristine conditions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the applicants’ fundamental right to pursue a trade or business.

The defendant adopted a regulation that would have biased in favour of traditional bagged vacuum cleaners which would lose performance as the receptacle filled with dust, rather than those like applicants’ cyclonic technology-based machines which would maintain their performance throughout use. This restricted applicants’ ability to do business and compete fairly with competitors whose inferior performance when filling with dust would have been masked by the defendant’s label which would have provided for testing in pristine conditions.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that these serious breaches of the European Union law caused the applicants significant material and non-material damage for which the defendant should be held liable to pay compensation to the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that these serious breaches of the European Union law caused the applicants significant material and non-material damage for which the defendant should be held liable to pay compensation to the applicants.

---

(1)  1Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (OJ L 192, 13.7.2013, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (OJ L 153, 18.6.2010, p. 1).

---