# C_2017369EN.01003001.xml

| 30.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/30

---

Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Fortischem v Parliament and Council

(Case T-560/17)

(2017/C 369/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul letter (d) in Annex III, Part I, to Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul letter (d) in Annex III, Part I, to Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (1); and

1

| — | award the applicant the costs of the action. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant the costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it infringes the principle of legitimate expectations by depriving the mercury cell production site operators of their possibility to receive an extension for complying with the best available techniques if the conditions under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) are met. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it infringes the principle of legitimate expectations by depriving the mercury cell production site operators of their possibility to receive an extension for complying with the best available techniques if the conditions under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) are met.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it infringes the principle of proportionality by (i) setting a firm phase-out deadline for mercury cell production well ahead of the deadline ensuing from the applicable international regulation on mercury, without at least providing the possibility of granting extensions/exemptions in specific cases, (ii) promoting legislation which is unable to provide any significant environmental benefits to a wider public but at the same time causing significant disadvantages to the business operators, and (iii) ignoring existing legislation already providing clear rules for phase-out and extensions/exemptions and failing to provide hardship clauses on its own. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it infringes the principle of proportionality by (i) setting a firm phase-out deadline for mercury cell production well ahead of the deadline ensuing from the applicable international regulation on mercury, without at least providing the possibility of granting extensions/exemptions in specific cases, (ii) promoting legislation which is unable to provide any significant environmental benefits to a wider public but at the same time causing significant disadvantages to the business operators, and (iii) ignoring existing legislation already providing clear rules for phase-out and extensions/exemptions and failing to provide hardship clauses on its own.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it will cause losses for the applicant’s business operations tantamount to a breach of the fundamental right to property under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, being disproportionate to the objectives of the contested provision and capable of being achieved by less restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it will cause losses for the applicant’s business operations tantamount to a breach of the fundamental right to property under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, being disproportionate to the objectives of the contested provision and capable of being achieved by less restrictive measures.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (OJ 2017, L 137, p. 1)

1

---