- ECHA
- A propos de l'Agence
- Comment nous travaillons
- Procédures et politiques
- Transparence
- Affaires auxquelles l'ECHA est partie
- Biocides
Affaires dans lesquelles l'ECHA est défenderesse ou partie intervenante
Affaires dans lesquelles l'ECHA est défenderesse ou partie intervenante
Affaires dans lesquelles l'ECHA est défenderesse ou partie intervenante
Ce tableau présente toutes les affaires clôturées par une décision de justice auxquelles l'ECHA a été partie. Les parties intéressées peuvent facilement consulter les décisions susceptibles de les concerner dans le cadre des activités de base de l'ECHA (REACH, CLP, entre autres). Pour certaines affaires, un recours ou un renvoi peut être pendant; ces procédures figurent également dans ce tableau. Celui-ci ne présente pas les affaires impliquant le personnel ou les marchés publics.
Les affaires clôturées devant les juridictions sont classées en huit catégories:
- Liste des substances candidates REACH: affaires liées à l'identification d'une substance en tant que substance extrêmement préoccupante;
- Enregistrement REACH: affaires liées à l’obligation de soumission conjointe de données;
- Autorisation REACH: affaires liées à l'inclusion d'une substance dans la liste des substances soumises à autorisation (annexe XIV) et aux demandes d'autorisation;
- Évaluation REACH: affaires dans lesquelles l'ECHA a demandé des informations à un déclarant dans le cadre de la procédure d'évaluation (articles 40, 41 ou 46 du règlement REACH);
- CLH: affaires concernant l'harmonisation de la classification d'une substance;
- Biocides: affaires concernant les biocides;
- ATD: affaires liées à des demandes d'accès aux documents;
- Taille de l'entreprise: affaires liées à la vérification de la taille des entreprises et aux frais connexes.
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 |