CELEX: 62017TN0243
Language: en
Date: 2017-04-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-243/17: Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Ecolab Deutschland and Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann v ECHA

10.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 221/31
            
         Action brought on 24 April 2017 — Ecolab Deutschland and Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann v ECHA
   (Case T-243/17)
   (2017/C 221/44)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim, Germany) and Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard and P. Sellar, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the application admissibble and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) concerning the inclusion of the company Sasol Chemie GmbH & Co. KG, as active supplier for the substance 1-Propanol on the list provided by Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 (1) (the ‘Article 95 List’) for product types 1, 2 and 4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.
            
         
      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 an infringement of Article 95(1), second paragraph, of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicants put forward that ECHA has failed to follow the legal conditions for the inclusion of a company such as Sasol in the Article 95 List as provided for in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, as it was not possible for Sasol to have submitted a complete dossier to ECHA. According to the applicants, its dossier cannot have included either a copy of the Comet Assay test or a letter of access granting reference rights to that test.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicants put forward that by accepting the dossier submitted by Sasol for the purpose of Article 95 List inclusion as complete, ECHA has treated companies in a similar situation differently without objective justification in breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the level playing field established by Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 as well as the creation of unfair competition
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicants claim that by including Sasol on the Article 95 List, ECHA has failed to apply the rules under Articles 62 and 63 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 which are designed to ensure a level playing field between those companies such as the applicants which have taken part in the 1-Propanol review and those, such as Sasol, which have not.
                        
                     
         
      (1)  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 L 167, p. 1).