EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/33

Action brought on 9 April 2013 — Group’Hygiène v Commission

(Case T-202/13)

2013/C 171/62

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Group’Hygiène (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of the Commission, inasmuch as the Commission may not, on the basis of its implementing powers, amend essential elements of the basic legislation. Since Directive 2013/2/EU (1) expanded the definition of packaging to products which are not referred to in Directive 94/62/EC (2), Directive 2013/2/EU is therefore vitiated by lack of competence.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of the general principles of European Union law on the obligation to state reasons as Directive 2013/2/EU does not explain the reasons why only some rolls, tubes and cylinders constitute packaging. The applicant submits that the statement of reasons for the measure was particularly necessary because the contested measure constitutes a change in position as against the relevant previous positions of the bodies of the European Union.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Directive 94/62/EC inasmuch as it is obvious that rolls, tubes and cylinders may not be categorised as packaging as a roll, tube or cylinder is a purely internal part of a product and does not correspond to the legal definition of packaging used in Directive 94/62/EC.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment as Directive 2013/2/EU treats comparable situations differently inasmuch as the directive does not categorise industrial rolls, tubes and cylinders as packaging, although industrial rolls, tubes and cylinders and non-industrial rolls, tubes and cylinders are in an objectively comparable situation, and inasmuch as products with characteristics similar to rolls, tubes and cylinders are excluded from the category of packaging.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations inasmuch as Directive 2013/2/EU abruptly, and without transitional measures, calls in question the approach taken by the European Union legislature according to which rolls, tubes and cylinders are not packaging within the meaning of Directive 94/62/EC.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality inasmuch as the contested measure gives rise to disproportionate financial consequences for the economic operators in the sector because, unlike the other manufacturers subject to the legislation relating to packaging, manufacturers of rolls, tubes and cylinders cannot reduce the volume of rolls, tubes and cylinders produced as they are absolutely necessary and integrated into the products.

(1) OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10.

(2) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10).