Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-337/18 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, July 27, 2018

• Resolution Date: July 27, 2018
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-337/18

Action brought on 1st of June 2018 - Laboratoire Pareva v Commission

(Case T-337/18)

Language 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) 2018/619¹ 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 528/2012² (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:

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) 1062/2014³ which, if they had been respected, could have led to a different outcome.

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.

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...