CELEX: 62022TN0070
Language: en
Date: 2022-02-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-70/22: Action brought on 3 February 2022 — Novasol v ECHA

28.3.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 138/29
            
         
      Action brought on 3 February 2022 — Novasol v ECHA
      (Case T-70/22)
      (2022/C 138/34)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Novasol (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: C. Alter and G. Bouton, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul, on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, ECHA’s decision SME D (2021)8531-DC, of 25 November 2021, in which it found that the applicant cannot be recognised as an SME and is not eligible for the reduced fees for a medium-sized enterprise, as claimed at the time of the submissions;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order ECHA to pay all 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 that ECHA erred in law in the contested decision, on the ground that it misinterpreted the legal rules applicable to the assessment of the size of small and medium-sized enterprises (‘SMEs’) referred to in the REACH Regulation, (1) in Recommendation 2003/361 (2) and in Regulation No 340/2008. (3)
                  
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the facts of the case, in that the contested decision is based on an incorrect reading of the accuracy of the facts on which the classification as an SME is based, even though ECHA had all the information necessary to assess the applicant’s size.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons and of the principle of sound administration, in so far as, despite the detailed and documented observations made by the applicant in order to determine the dimensions of the enterprise, ECHA did not take any account of the arguments submitted.
               
            
         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).
      
         (2)  Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36).
      
         (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2008 L 107, p. 6).