CELEX: 62017TN0806
Language: en
Date: 2017-12-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-806/17: Action brought on 11 December 2017 — BASF and REACH & colours v ECHA

12.2.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 52/37
            
         Action brought on 11 December 2017 — BASF and REACH & colours v ECHA
   (Case T-806/17)
   (2018/C 052/49)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) and REACH & colours Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (REACH & colours Kft.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers, and D. Abrahams, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the Application admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul decision DSH-30-3-D-0122-2017 of the European Chemicals Agency dated 2 October 2017 granting access to the joint submission of substance hexasodium 2,2’-[vinylenebis [(3-sulphonato-4,1-phenylene)imino [6-(diethylamino)-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl]imino]] bis(benzene-1,4-disulphonate) (EC No. 255-217-5);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings;
            
         
               —
            
            
               take such other or further measure as justice may require.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the European Chemicals Agency (the ‘Agency’) committed a vitiating error of fact, by excluding relevant facts from the basis of the contested decision
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicants submit that the Agency, by entirely overlooking the efforts of the parties made prior to 2017 and by making factually erroneous findings regarding the identity of the first applicant and the date of submission of the reply to the Agency’s request for information; relies on a wrong determination of facts which are contrary to the principle of good administration and vitiate the contested decision to the extent that it must be annulled.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed manifest errors of assessment, by failing to evaluate all the relevant facts and circumstances, by concluding that the claimant made more efforts than the applicants and by failing to take into account Article 25 of the REACH Regulation (1)
               
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicants submit that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to take into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the situation the contested decision is intended to govern, by concluding that the claimant made more efforts than the applicants, by failing to consider the specific facts of the dispute before it and by failing to take into account the applicants’ concerns regarding the duplication of vertebrate animal tests by the claimant, contrary to Article 25 of the REACH Regulation.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the Agency infringed the principle of legal certainty by placing the applicants in an unacceptable position of legal certainty as regards the claimant’s ability to rely on the applicants’ data and the quality and compliance of the claimant’s data
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicants consider that the Agency, in adopting the contested decision, infringed the principle of legal certainty, as it does not limit the access granted to the applicants’ joint submission even though the claimant is registering by way of a full opt-out and since the Agency did not address the issues with the full opt-out dossier (quality and possible duplication of vertebrate studies). The applicants are therefore in a situation of legal uncertainty as to how to protect their rights, since the scope and extent of the rights granted to the claimant remain opaque.
                        
                     
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Agency breached its duty to state reasons, by failing to explain why it did not consider any of the correspondence before 2017 relevant
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The Agency adopted its contested decision by relying on a mere fraction of the negotiations that occurred between the parties and arbitrarily limited its review to the few exchanges between the parties that occurred from January 2017 onwards. The applicants had submitted all correspondence on the substance between the claimant and the applicants, highlighting why such correspondence is relevant. Despite the applicants’ explanation as to the relevance of the correspondence, the Agency did not provide any reasons as to why it did not consider, and in fact it completely ignored, the communications between the applicants and SSS before January 2017.
                        
                     
         
      (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) (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).