Language of document :

Action brought on 20 February 2020 – BSEF v Commission

(Case T-113/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bromine Science Environnemental Forum (BSEF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2021 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for electronic displays pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2009, insofar as it bans halogenated flame retardants;

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that in adopting the Contested Regulation, the Commission breached Article 1(4) and Article 15(2)(c)(i) of the Ecodesign Directive1 , acted ultra vires and exceeded the limits of its competence, as well as prevented the effet utile of other EU law measures.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicant’s rights of defence by banning the halogenated flame retardants for use in electronic displays through the Contested Regulation.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in its assessment and failed to take all information into account, breached Article 15(1) of the Ecodesign Directive and failed in its duty to undertake an appropriate impact assessment when banning halogenated flame retardants under the Contested Regulation.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation breaches the principle of legal certainty in that the applicant is placed in a position of unacceptable legal uncertainty.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation breaches the principle of proportionality in that the ban on halogenated flame retardants exceeds the limits of what is appropriate, is not necessary to achieve the objectives pursued and is not the least onerous measure to which the Commission could have had recourse.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation breaches the principle of equal treatment in that the ban on halogenated flame retardants is discriminatory vis-à-vis other categories of products and vis-à-vis other substances.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that in adopting the Contested Regulation, the Commission breached Article 15(1) of the Ecodesign Directive and Article 5a(1) to (4) and Article 7 and 8 of Decision 1999/468/EC2 and acted ultra vires.

____________

1 Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products, OJ 2009, L 285, p. 10.

2 Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, OJ 1999, L184, p. 23.