17.11.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/45

Action brought on 31 July 2014 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF v Commission

(Case T-573/14)

2014/C 409/66

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group (Brussels, Belgium) and SNF SAS (Andrézieux Bouthéon, France) (represented by: R. Cana and A. Patsa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

—

annul the contested act because it lays down an invariable concentration limit of 100 ppm for residual monomers;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicants seek the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision 2014/256/EU of 2 May 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for converted paper products (1).

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the EU Ecolabel Regulation (2) as the Commission has laid down an invariable concentration limit of 100 ppm for residual monomers under Section (e) of Criterion 1(B)(B3) of the annex to the contested decision. The applicants submit that the requirements laid down in the said section:

—

infringe Article 6(3) of and Annex I to the EU Ecolabel Regulation as they are not determined on a scientific basis;

—

infringe Article 6(1) of and Annex I to the EU Ecolabel Regulation as they do not take into account the latest strategic objectives of the EU in the environmental field;

—

infringe Article 6(3)(b) of the EU Ecolabel Regulation as their feasibility has not been considered by the Commission.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons and the principles of equality and proportionality as the contested decision:

—

contains no indication or explanation as to the requirements laid down in Section (e) of Criterion 1(B)(B3);

—

treats both different situations equally and equal situations differently without such discrimination being objectively justified;

—

is not necessary to attain the objectives that are pursued and less onerous measures exist.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the Commission’s duty of good administration as it has not examined carefully and impartially all the relevant factors and circumstances when adopting the contested decision.

(1)  OJ 2014 L 135, p. 24. Notified under document C(2014) 2774.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (OJ 2010 L 27, p. 1).