CELEX: 62018TN0337
Language: en
Date: 2018-06-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-337/18: Action brought on 1st of June 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission

201807270072025332018/C 285/523372018TC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180601363721Case T-337/18: Action brought on 1st of June 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN3610120180601EN0052361372Action brought on 1st of June 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission
   (Case T-337/18)2018/C 285/52Language of the case: English
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Laboratoire Pareva (Saint Martin de Crau, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Englebert, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
            —
         
         
            declare the application admissible and well-founded;
         
      
            —
         
         
            annul the European Commission’s Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/619 (
                  1
               ) of 20 April 2018 not approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 under Regulation 528/2012 (
                  2
               ) (the ‘Contested Decision’); and
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the defendant 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.
   The applicant submits that the Contested Decision was adopted by the defendant in violation of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘'TFEU’'), the EU secondary legislation and the principles of EU law. Therefore, the applicant seeks annulment of the Contested Decision on the following three grounds:
   
            1.
         
         
            First plea in law, alleging substantive procedural errors:
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     the defendant has failed to follow procedural steps that were required of it prior to adopting the Contested Decision. The defendant has infringed substantive procedural rules of Article 6(7)(a) and Article 6(7)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 1062/2014 (
                           3
                        ) which, if they had been respected, could have led to a different outcome.
                  
               
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment:
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     The defendant has committed a manifest error of assessment by taking into account irrelevant factors in its assessment of PHMB and by failing to give sufficient and due weight to factors which are specific and relevant to the applicant's PHMB.
                  
               
      
            3.
         
         
            Third plea in law, alleging breach of fundamental principles of EU law and of the rights of defence:
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     The defendant did not guarantee that the applicant was given a full, proper and effective opportunity to submit comments during the procedure.
                  
               
      (
         1
      )	Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/619 of 20 April 2018 not approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 (OJ 2018, L 102, p. 21)
   (
         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) No 1062/2014 of 4 August 2014 on the work programme for the systematic examination of all existing active substances contained in biocidal products referred to in Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014, L 294, p. 1)