- ECHA
- O nas
- Jak pracujemy
- Procedury i polityka
- Przejrzystość
- Sprawy, w których ECHA jest stroną
- Biocides
Sprawy, w których ECHA jest oskarżonym lub interwenientem.
Sprawy, w których ECHA jest oskarżonym lub interwenientem.
Sprawy, w których ECHA jest oskarżonym lub interwenientem.
Tabela zawiera wszystkie sprawy sądowe zakończone wydaniem orzeczenia, w których ECHA była stroną. Zainteresowane strony mogą łatwo znaleźć decyzje, które mogą być dla nich istotne odnośnie do głównej działalności ECHA (m.in. REACH, CLP). W niektórych sprawach może nadal trwać postępowanie odwoławcze lub procedura odesłania (renvoi), co również jest wymienione w tabeli. W tabeli nie pokazano spraw związanych z personelem lub zamówieniami publicznymi.
Zamknięte sprawy sądowe sklasyfikowano w ośmiu kategoriach:
- lista kandydacka REACH: sprawy związane z określeniem substancji jako substancji stanowiącej bardzo duże zagrożenie;
- rejestracja REACH: sprawy dotyczące obowiązku wspólnego przedkładania danych;
- udzielanie zezwoleń zgodnie z REACH : sprawy związane z umieszczeniem substancji na liście kandydackiej (załącznik XIV) i wnioskami o udzielenie zezwolenia;
- ocena zgodnie z REACH: sprawy, w których ECHA zażądała informacji od rejestrującego w ramach procedury oceny (art. 40, 41 lub 46 REACH);
- CLH: sprawy związane z harmonizacją klasyfikacji substancji;
- produkty biobójcze: sprawy dotyczące produktów biobójczych;
- dostęp do dokumentów: sprawy związane z wnioskami o dostęp do dokumentów;
- wielkość przedsiębiorstwa: sprawy związane z weryfikacją wielkości przedsiębiorstwa i powiązanymi opłatami.
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 |