Case T-536/23: Action brought on 25 August 2023 — AlzChem Trostberg v Commission
Date: 2023-08-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: biocide, chemical product, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, insecticide, market approval, marketing standard, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_202300663EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/663


13.11.2023





Action brought on 25 August 2023 — AlzChem Trostberg v Commission
(Case T-536/23)
(C/2023/663)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AlzChem Trostberg GmbH (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: D. Abrahams, R. Spangenberg and Z. Romata, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/1097 (1) (‘the contested decision’); and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 90(2) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2);










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100 (3);










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicant’s right of defence by refusing to allow the generation and submission of data which was necessary in order for a sufficient and therefore lawful evaluation to be completed for the contested decision;










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that Commission breached the applicant’s legitimate expectations by acting contrary to the notes agreed by Member State’s competent authorities for biocidal products;










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in coming to the contested decision, namely that cyanamide is one which can be identified as having endocrine disrupting properties;










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in coming to the contested decision, namely that the European Chemicals Agency’s Biocidal Product Committee’s purported risk assessment supported the conclusion in the contested decision that cyanamide must not be approved;










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination by treating cyanamide differently than other substances in a comparable situation; and










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of proportionality by disregarding more suitable and proportionate options than a non-approval decision.






(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/1097 of 5 June 2023 not approving cyanamide as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 3 and 18 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2023, L 146, p. 27).

(2)  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 2012 L 167, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100 of 4 September 2017 setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and Council (OJ 2017 L 301, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/663/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)