- ECHA
- Sobre la Agencia
- Nuestra manera de trabajar
- Procedimientos y políticas
- Transparencia
- Cases where ECHA is a party
- Biocides
Casos en los que la ECHA es la parte demandada o parte coadyuvante
Casos en los que la ECHA es la parte demandada o parte coadyuvante
Casos en los que la ECHA es la parte demandada o parte coadyuvante
En el siguiente cuadro se recogen todos los asuntos cerrados en los que la ECHA se ha constituido en parte. Las partes interesadas pueden consultar fácilmente las decisiones que les resulten relevantes en el ámbito de las actividades principales de la ECHA (REACH y CLP, entre otros). En algunos de los casos puede haber un recurso pendiente o una remisión, lo cual también se indica en el cuadro, a diferencia de los casos relacionados con contratación de personal o pública, que no figuran.
Los asuntos cerrados se han clasificado en ocho categorías:
- Lista de sustancias candidatas REACH: asuntos relacionados con la identificación de una sustancia como extremadamente preocupante;
- Registro con arreglo a REACH: casos relacionados con la obligación de presentación conjunta de datos;
- Autorización REACH: asuntos relacionados con la inclusión de una sustancia en la Lista de autorización (anexo XIV) y las solicitudes de autorización;
- Evaluación REACH: asuntos en los que la ECHA ha solicitado información a un solicitante de registro en virtud del procedimiento de evaluación (artículos 40, 41 o 46 de REACH);
- CLH: asuntos relacionados con la armonización de la clasificación de una sustancia;
- Biocidas: casos relacionados con biocidas;
- ATD: asuntos relacionados con las solicitudes de acceso a documentos;
- Tamaño de la empresa: asuntos relativos a la verificación del tamaño de la empresa y los cambios relacionados.
Case number | Parties | Keywords | Main Legal Provisions | Procedurally linked cases | Date of the ruling |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
T-669/15 R | Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA | Application for interim measures — REACH — Making available on the market and use of biocidal products — Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency |
Art. 278, 279, 256(1) of TFEU; Art. 95 of BPR; Art. 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights |
Initial Case: Appeal on the Initial Case: |
17/12/2015 |
T-543/15R | Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA | Application for interim measures — REACH — Making available on the market and use of biocidal products — Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency |
Art. 278, 279, 256(1) of TFEU; Art. 95 of BPR; Art. 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights |
Initial Case: Appeal on the Initial Case: |
17/12/2015 |
T-669/15 | Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA | Actions for annulment — Inclusion as supplier of an active substance on the list provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility | Art. 95 of BPR; Art. 263 of TFEU |
|
12/10/2016 |
T-543/15 | Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA | Actions for annulment — Inclusion as supplier of an active substance on the list provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility | Art. 95 of BPR; Art. 263 of TFEU |
|
12/10/2016 |
C-663/16 P | Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Ecolab Deutschland v ECHA | Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice –– Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Making available on the market and use of biocidal products — Article 95 — European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Publication of a list of active substances — Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance | Art. 130(1), 130(7) and 181 of the Rules of Procedure |
Initial Case: Proceedings for interim measures: |
19/07/2017 |
C-666/16 P | Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Ecolab Deutschland v ECHA | Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice –– Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Making available on the market and use of biocidal products — Article 95 — European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Publication of a list of active substances — Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance | Art. 130(1) and 130(7) of the Rules of Procedure |
Initial Case: Proceedings for Interim Measures: |
19/07/2017 |
T-243/17 | Ecolab Deutschland and Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann v ECHA | Removal from the register | Art. 263 of TFEU | 18/10/2017 | |
Laboratoire Pareva and Biotech3D v Commission | Biocidal products – Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) – Refusal of approval for product-types 1, 5 and 6 – Conditional approval for product-types 2 and 4 – Risks to human health and the environment – Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 – Article 6(7)(a) and (b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 – Harmonised classification of the active substance under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 – Prior consultation of the ECHA – Manifest error of assessment – Read-across – Right to be heard |
Regulation (EU) 528/2012, |
15/09/2021 | ||
Sumitomo Chemical and Tenka Best v Commission | Removal from the registrer | 18/12/2019 | |||
Laboratoire Pareva v Commission | Biocidal products – Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) – Refusal of approval for product-types 1, 5 and 6 – Conditional approval for product-types 2 and 4 – Risks to human health and the environment – Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 – Article 6(7)(a) and (b) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 – Harmonised classification of the active substance under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 – Prior consultation of the ECHA – Manifest error of assessment – Read-across – Right to be heard |
Regulation (EU) 528/2012, |
15/09/2021 | ||
EurO3zon v ECHA | Suspension of evaluation active substance - BPR Regulation | 08/04/2023 | |||
Laboratoire PAREVA S.A.S. v Commission | Appeal – Biocidal products – Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 – Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 – Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) – Refusal of approval as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 – Approval as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 – Teratogenic effect – Human health risk assessment |
Appeal – Biocidal products – Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 – Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 – Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) – Refusal of approval as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 – Approval as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 – Teratogenic effect – Human health risk assessment |
Appeal of the Cases T-337/18 and T-347/18 |
10/11/2022 | |
Sciessent LLC v Commission | Biocidal products – Active substances – Silver zeolite and silver copper zeolite – Refusal of approval for product-types 2 and 7 – Article 4 and Article 19(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 – Efficacy – Active substances for use in treated articles – Assessment of the efficacy of the treated articles themselves – Competence of the Commission – Principle of non-discrimination – Legal certainty – Legitimate expectations |
Articles 3(1)(I), 4(1), 19(1), 19(2), Annex II, Annex VI of Regulation (No 528/2012) |
COM Decision 2019/1973 |
16/11/2022 | |
Sciessent LLC v Commission | Biocidal products – Active substances – Silver zeolite and silver copper zeolite – Refusal of approval for product-types 2 and 7 – Article 4 and Article 19(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 – Efficacy – Active substances for use in treated articles – Assessment of the efficacy of the treated articles themselves – Competence of the Commission – Principle of non-discrimination – Legal certainty – Legitimate expectations |
Articles 3(1)(I), 4(1), 19(1), 19(2), Annex II, Annex VI of Regulation (No 528/2012) |
COM Decision 2019/1960 |
16/11/2022 |