EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/37

Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-229/17)

(2017/C 195/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents, and by M. Winkelmüller, F. van Schewick and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/133 of 25 January 2017 on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14342:2013 ‘Wood flooring and parquet: Characteristics, evaluation of conformity and marking’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 21, p. 113),

— annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/145 of 25 January 2017 on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14904:2006 ‘Surfaces for sports areas — Indoor surfaces for multi-sports use: Specification’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 22, p. 62),

— annul the Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ 2017 C 76, p. 32), in so far as it relates to harmonised standard EN 14342:2013 ‘Wood flooring and parquet: Characteristics, evaluation of conformity and marking’,

— annul the Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ 2017 C 76, p. 32), in so far as it relates to harmonised standard EN 14904:2006 ‘Surfaces for sports areas — Indoor surfaces for multi-sports use: Specification’; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 failure to comply with essential procedural requirements The Federal Republic of Germany submits that the Commission infringed essential procedural rules laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 (1) when it adopted the contested decisions. The Commission failed to refer the matter to the Committee established under Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC, (2) the envisaged consultation of the relevant European standardisation body is flawed and the decisions were not taken ‘in the light of the opinion’ of the Committee established under Article 5 of that directive.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons By its second plea, the applicant claims that the contested decisions fail to comply with the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, since they do not take a position on the question which is central to Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011, namely whether the relevant harmonised standards are consistent with the corresponding mandate and ensure compliance with the basic requirements for buildings. It follows that neither the Federal Republic of Germany nor the General Court is able to assess the essential legal and factual grounds on which the Commission relied.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 Furthermore, the applicant claims that the contested decisions and communications infringe the substantive provisions of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011. — Firstly, the contested decisions and communication infringe the first and second subparagraphs of Article 17(5) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011, since, contrary to the abovementioned provisions, the Commission did not examine the extent to which the harmonised standards in question were consistent with the corresponding mandate and thus failed to recognise that they were not so consistent. — Secondly, the contested decisions and communication infringe Article 18(2), in conjunction with Article 3(1) and (2) and the first subparagraph of Article 17(3), of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011. The Commission overlooked the fact that the standards in question do not set out any procedures or criteria for the assessment of the supply of other allegedly hazardous substances, are thus incomplete with regard to an essential characteristic of construction products and accordingly jeopardise compliance with the basic requirements for buildings. — Finally, the Commission made a further error of assessment when adopting the contested measures in that it failed to recognise the possibility afforded by Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 to publish the reference to a harmonised standard in the Official Journal together with the restriction proposed by the applicant.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ 2011 L 88, p. 5).

(2) Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18).