Case T-154/25: Action brought on 5 March 2025 – Applia v Commission
Date: 2025-03-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU alert system, health risk, launching of a product, market approval, market supervision, principle of proportionality, product safety, safety standard








C_202503297EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3297


24.6.2025






Action brought on 5 March 2025 – Applia v Commission


(Case T-154/25)

(C/2025/3297)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Applia - Home Appliance Europe (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt and P. Dilkova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Annex II, Section 4, and Recital 11 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3173 (1) (‘the contested act’);










—


order the Commission to pay the full costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested act infringes Article 290(1) TFEU and Article 26(10) of Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2):






—


the contested act disregards an essential element of Regulation 2023/988, by wrongly defining a presumption of serious risk without assessment of products placed on the market by national authorities;










—


the contested act disregards the nature of the delegation established by Regulation 2023/988, wrongly extending the scope of the contested act beyond the mere definition of the criteria for assessing the level of risk. Consequently, the Commission amends (as opposed to supplements) Regulation 2023/988 in violation of its Article 26(10).














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act violates the principle of legal certainty.
The contested act fails to establish a clear and unequivocal regulatory framework, thereby making it impossible for economic operators to determine whether their product may be subject to the purported presumption of serious risk.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested act violates the principle of proportionality.
Regulation 2023/988’s prior individual risk assessment of products is a proportionate means of achieving the balance sought by the legislator between improving the functioning of the internal market and guaranteeing a high level of consumer protection. However, the contested act disrupts this balance by introducing flawed and sweeping risk presumptions that exceed what is necessary.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the facts in the Commission’s hypothesized serious risk scenarios.
The purported presumptions of serious risk posed by products result in manifest inconsistencies within the provisions of the contested act itself, leading to erroneous risk presumptions that lack any factual foundation.






(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/3173 of 27 August 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to rules on access to and operation of the Safety Gate Rapid Alert System, information to be entered in that System, notification requirements and the criteria for assessment of the level of risk (OJ L, 2024/3173).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 on general product safety, amending Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 87/357/EEC (OJ 2023 L 135, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3297/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)