Language of document :

Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Sweden v Commission

(Case T-837/16)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and F. Bergius, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 5644 of 7 September 2016 granting an authorisation for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and of lead chromate molybdate sulphate red under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (the contested decision), and

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has exceeded its implementing powers under Article 291(2) TFEU and Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

The Commission has exceeded its implementing powers by disregarding Articles 55 and 60(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 and granting the authorisation applied for without the conditions laid down in the regulation for such a grant being satisfied and contrary to the aim of the regulation.

The Commission has disregarded Article 60(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 by granting authorisation without carrying out its own assessment of the conditions for that grant in accordance with that article and without sufficiently investigating whether the conditions for granting the authorisation under that article are satisfied.

The Commission has also disregarded Article 55 of Regulation No 1907/2006 by granting the authorisation contrary to the aim of the authorisation system, inter alia, to ensure a well-functioning internal market and gradually replace substances of very high concern with suitable alternative substances or techniques, where that is economically and technically feasible.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made a manifestly incorrect assessment and an incorrect application of the law.

The same facts as those stated with regard to the first plea in law are also relied on in respect of this plea in law. The Commission's disregard of Articles 55 and 60(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006, as described above, thus also means that, in the contested decision, the Commission has made a clearly incorrect assessment and incorrect application of the law.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to have regard to the precautionary principle and the obligation to state reasons.

The Commission failed to have regard to the precautionary principle by granting authorisation without carrying out its own assessment of the conditions therefor under Article 60(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 and without sufficiently investigating whether the conditions for grant of authorisation under that article are satisfied.

In any event, the Commission has failed to have regard to its obligation to state reasons which flows from Article 296 TFEU, Article 130 of Regulation No 1907/2006 and the principle of sound administration, since it is not possible to discern from the contested decision how the Commission assessed whether the conditions for the grant of authorisation in accordance with Article 60(4) of the regulation are satisfied.

____________