Case T‑544/13

Dyson Ltd

v

European Commission

(Directive 2010/30/EU — Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 — Competence of the Commission — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 11 November 2015

1.      Energy — Indication of energy consumption by energy-related products — Directive 2010/30 — Discretion of the EU institutions — Scope — Judicial review — Consumers not misled as to the energy consumption of vacuum cleaners

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/30)

2.      Energy — Indication of energy consumption by energy-related products — Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners — Regulation No 665/2013 — Obligation on manufacturers to have regard to the improvement of energy efficiency

(Commission Regulation No 665/2013)

3.      Energy — Indication of energy consumption by energy-related products — Directive 2010/30 and Regulation No 665/2013 — Methods of measuring energy efficiency — Competence of the Commission — Bagged an bagless vacuum cleaners — Uniform treatment of different situations justified by objective reasons — Equal treatment — No infringement

(Commission Regulation No 665/2013; European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/30)

4.      Energy — Indication of energy consumption by energy-related products — Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners — Regulation No 665/2013 — Regulatory measure of general scope — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Admissibility of statement of reasons limited to indicating the overall situation leading to the adoption of the measure and the general objectives pursued by the latter

(Commission Regulation No 665/2013)

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 38, 39, 47, 53)

2.      Article 7 of Regulation No 665/2013, supplementing Directive 2010/30 with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners, provides that the Commission is to review that regulation in the light of technological progress no later than five years after its entry into force, and that the review must in particular assess whether it is feasible to use measurement methods based on a partly loaded rather than an empty receptacle. Thus, Article 7 of the contested regulation requires manufacturers of bagged vacuum cleaners to take into account future possible technological progress. It cannot, therefore, be argued that the contested regulation will not give vacuum cleaner manufacturers an incentive to make better design choices that aim at achieving improved energy efficiency.

(see paras 62-64)

3.      In exercising its discretion for the purpose of adopting Regulation No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30 with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners, the Commission is bound to base its choice as to the methods used to measure energy efficiency on objective criteria, in accordance with the objectives pursued by Directive 2010/30, namely providing reliable, standard information to consumers, thereby enabling them to choose more efficient products. The application of a uniform method, whatever the detailed rules of application may be, to measure the cleaning performance of vacuum cleaners ‘with dust bag’, ‘bagless’ and based on ‘cyclonic’ technology, provided for by the said regulation does not infringe the principle of equal treatment where tests different from those used by the Commission, advocated by manufacturers of bagless vacuum cleaners, have not themselves been tested through ‘circular’ tests between laboratories and do not therefore simultaneously fulfil the criteria for reliability, accuracy and reproducibility. Such a fact constitutes an objective reason justifying uniform treatment of vacuum cleaners using different technologies, as is the case with bagged vacuum cleaners and bagless vacuum cleaners.

(see paras 86, 93, 94, 102, 103, 108-110)

4.      In the case of a measure intended to have general application, the statement of reasons may be limited to indicating, first, the general situation which led to its adoption and, second, the general objectives which it is intended to achieve. Moreover, if a measure of general application clearly discloses the essential objective pursued by the institution, it would be excessive to require a specific statement of reasons for the various technical choices made.

In those circumstances, the Commission has provided a sufficient statement of reasons for Regulation No 665/2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30 with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners, in terms of its decisions on the measurement methods chosen therein. It could be construed from Article 7, read in conjunction with Article 5, recital 4 in the preamble thereto and point 1 of Annex VI to the contested regulation, that the Commission chose measurement methods based on tests conducted with an empty dust bag rather than tests conducted with a dust-loaded receptacle due to the inexistence, having regard to the state of technological knowledge, in the view of the Commission, of reliable, accurate and reproducible measurement methods, which take into account the recognised state-of-the-art measurement methods to obtain measurements based on tests conducted with a dust-loaded receptacle, without however expressly requiring one test rather than another. For the same reasons, the Commission is not required to explain in greater detail why, due to the state of technological progress, it chose, in Article 7 of the said regulation, to put back to five years the review of the tests of vacuum cleaners’ energy efficiency and cleaning performance with a dust-loaded receptacle.

The statement of reasons for the contested regulation thus enables the persons concerned to know the Commission’s reasoning, enabling them to ascertain the reasons for the measure and enabling the General Court to exercise its power of review.

(see paras 122, 123, 127-130)