Case T‑89/13

Calestep, SL

v

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

(REACH — Fee for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises — Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

Summary — Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 16 September 2015

1.      Actions for annulment — Admissibility criteria — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Considered of Court’s own motion

(Art. 263 TFEU)

2.      Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Action against a decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) refusing an applicant for registration the reduction in fee provided for in respect of small enterprises — Admissibility

(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Arts 6(4), 91(1), and 94(1); Commission Regulation No 340/2008, Art. 13(4))

3.      Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Conditions relating to a signatory — Status of a third party in relation to the parties — Concept

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 51(1))

4.      Approximation of laws — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — REACH Regulation — Fees due to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Reduction in the fee for small undertakings — Meaning of small enterprise — Undertaking employing more than 50 persons — Not included

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Art. 6(4); Commission Recommendation 2003/361, Annex, Art. 2(2))

1.      Since the jurisdiction of the General Court is an issue involving an absolute bar to proceeding, the matter may be examined by the Court of its own motion.

(see para. 16)

2.      The EU judicature has jurisdiction to hear an action against a decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) taken under Article 13(4) of Regulation No 340/2008, on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), finding that an applicant for the registration of substances pursuant to Regulation No 1907/2006 does not fulfil the conditions in order to benefit from the reduction in fees for small undertakings, provided for in Article 6(4) of that regulation, and imposing on it an administrative charge.

Article 94(1) of Regulation No 1907/2006 provides that an action may be brought before the General Court or the Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, contesting a decision taken by the Board of Appeal or, in cases where no right of appeal lies before the Board, by the ECHA. In that regard, Article 91(1) of that regulation provides that an appeal may be brought before the Board of Appeal against decisions of the ECHA taken pursuant to Article 9, Article 20, Article 27(6), Article 30(2) and (3) and Article 51 of Regulation No 1907/2006. Those provisions concern decisions which have no link with the fee prescribed for small enterprises, provided for by Article 6(4) of the said regulation.

(see paras 17-20, 22)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 28, 29)

4.      Article 2(2) of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises provides that a small enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million. It is clear from a literal reading of that provision that the criteria relating to the staff headcount of the enterprise and to the financial ceilings are cumulative criteria within the context of Article 2(2) of the said Annex. That is clear from the use of the coordinating conjunction ‘and’, which indicates the cumulative nature of the criteria, unlike the use of the conjunction ‘or’, which indicates an alternative nature.

Furthermore, the staff headcount criterion is a decisive criterion for purposes of determining whether an enterprise is micro, small or medium-sized for the purposes of Recommendation 2003/361. Although Member States, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF) are free, under Article 2 of Recommendation 2003/361, to fix lower ceilings or indeed not to adopt the financial criterion in order to implement certain of their policies, the staff headcount criterion must always be adopted. Therefore, as regards an undertaking asking the ECHA for the reduction in the fee provided for in respect of small undertakings in Article 6(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006, an interpretation according to which, in essence, an enterprise which employs more than 50 persons may be classified as a small enterprise for the purposes of Recommendation 2003/361 is manifestly incorrect.

(see paras 39-41, 43)