# C_2017221EN.01003101.xml

| 10.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/31 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Ecolab Deutschland and Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann v ECHA

(Case T-243/17)

(2017/C 221/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim, Germany) and Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissibble and well-founded; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------- |

| — | annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) concerning the inclusion of the company Sasol Chemie GmbH & Co. KG, as active supplier for the substance 1-Propanol on the list provided by Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012( 1 ) (the ‘Article 95 List’) for product types 1, 2 and 4; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------- |

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 an infringement of Article 95(1), second paragraph, of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012
—
The applicants put forward that ECHA has failed to follow the legal conditions for the inclusion of a company such as Sasol in the Article 95 List as provided for in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, as it was not possible for Sasol to have submitted a complete dossier to ECHA. According to the applicants, its dossier cannot have included either a copy of the Comet Assay test or a letter of access granting reference rights to that test. | — | The applicants put forward that ECHA has failed to follow the legal conditions for the inclusion of a company such as Sasol in the Article 95 List as provided for in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, as it was not possible for Sasol to have submitted a complete dossier to ECHA. According to the applicants, its dossier cannot have included either a copy of the Comet Assay test or a letter of access granting reference rights to that test. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants put forward that ECHA has failed to follow the legal conditions for the inclusion of a company such as Sasol in the Article 95 List as provided for in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, as it was not possible for Sasol to have submitted a complete dossier to ECHA. According to the applicants, its dossier cannot have included either a copy of the Comet Assay test or a letter of access granting reference rights to that test. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination
—
The applicants put forward that by accepting the dossier submitted by Sasol for the purpose of Article 95 List inclusion as complete, ECHA has treated companies in a similar situation differently without objective justification in breach of the principle of non-discrimination. | — | The applicants put forward that by accepting the dossier submitted by Sasol for the purpose of Article 95 List inclusion as complete, ECHA has treated companies in a similar situation differently without objective justification in breach of the principle of non-discrimination. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants put forward that by accepting the dossier submitted by Sasol for the purpose of Article 95 List inclusion as complete, ECHA has treated companies in a similar situation differently without objective justification in breach of the principle of non-discrimination. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the level playing field established by Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 as well as the creation of unfair competition
—
The applicants claim that by including Sasol on the Article 95 List, ECHA has failed to apply the rules under Articles 62 and 63 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 which are designed to ensure a level playing field between those companies such as the applicants which have taken part in the 1-Propanol review and those, such as Sasol, which have not. | — | The applicants claim that by including Sasol on the Article 95 List, ECHA has failed to apply the rules under Articles 62 and 63 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 which are designed to ensure a level playing field between those companies such as the applicants which have taken part in the 1-Propanol review and those, such as Sasol, which have not. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants claim that by including Sasol on the Article 95 List, ECHA has failed to apply the rules under Articles 62 and 63 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 which are designed to ensure a level playing field between those companies such as the applicants which have taken part in the 1-Propanol review and those, such as Sasol, which have not. | | |

---

( 1 )  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ L 167, p. 1).

---