Action brought on 30 November 2023 – Goodwill M + G v Commission

(Case T-1125/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Goodwill M + G (Kontich, Belgium) (represented by: I. Van Giel and T. Toremans, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 of 25 September 2023 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards synthetic polymer microparticles (OJ 2023 L 238, p. 67; ‘the contested regulation’);

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, infringement of the proportionality principle

The aim of the contested regulation is to restrict the use of synthetic, water-insoluble polymers of 5 mm or less (‘synthetic polymer microparticles’ or ‘microplastics’) that are present in products to confer a sought-after characteristic (‘intentionally present’), in order to address the risk that those Microparticles may pose to the aquatic environment. According to the applicant, that regulation leads to an immediate ban on the use of glitter in Christmas decorations such as the ones it places on the market. That ban is however not appropriate for attaining the objective pursued by the Commission and the disadvantages caused are disproportionate to the aims pursued The Commission also did not choose the least onerous measure.

Second plea in law, infringement of the principle of equal treatment

The contested regulation provides for the entry into force of new rules in different transitional periods. There is a difference in treatment considering that, for some comparable sectors – such as the cosmetics sector – a transitional period is provided for, but that is not the case for the decorations sector, in which the applicant is active.

Third plea in law, infringement of the principle of legal certainty

First of all, the applicant submits that the absence of a transitional period makes it impossible for undertakings to adapt to the new regime and thus to limit the economic and financial risks. Second, the glitter ban is, in its view, neither clear nor precise. The ban applies, namely, only when glitter is released during ‘normal use’ of the products concerned – Christmas decorations in this case – but that term lacks clarity. As a result, the applicant cannot determine whether and to what extent the ban on its products is applicable and any legitimate expectation as to the application of the ban is impossible.

Fourth plea in law, breach of the duty of care

There is not a single document which shows that the decision not to provide for a transitional period for glitter which is released during normal use of a product such as Christmas decorations was based on scientific research or other proven facts. The Commission appears to have wrongly assumed, when adopting the regulation, that the sectors which were not granted a transitional period had not needed one since they had viable alternatives for the banned microparticles. By failing to substantiate matters, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and thus breached its duty of care.

____________