Case T‑675/13

K Chimica Srl

v

European Chemicals Agency

(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 — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Determination of an enterprise’s size — Power of the ECHA)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 15 September 2016

1.      Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility

(Arts 263 TFEU and 266 TFEU)

2.      Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Pleas — Alteration once proceedings have been started — Condition

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(d), and 48(2))

3.      Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure

(Art. 263 TFEU)

4.      Actions for annulment — Action against a decision merely confirming a previous decision — Inadmissibility — Concept of confirmatory decision

(Art. 263 TFEU)

5.      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 micro, small and medium-sized enterprises – Determination of the size of an enterprise – No possibility of ECHA demanding, on the basis of Recommendation 2003/361, communication by an enterprise of information concerning a non-partner enterprise

(Commission Regulation No 340/2008, Art. 13(4); Commission Recommendation 2003/361, Annex, Arts 3(2), and 6(3))

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 20)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 21)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 23, 24)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 25, 26)

5.      The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) cannot validly rely on the first subparagraph of Article 6(3) of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises to demand, at the time of registration of a substance, that an applicant seeking to benefit from the reduction in the fee for medium-sized undertakings provide information concerning an undertaking that is not a partner enterprise of applicant within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361. It is clear from that provision that it applies for assessing the data of partner enterprises of the enterprise in question, that is to say, the enterprise which is the subject-matter of a review, in connection with Recommendation 2003/361, the purpose of which is to determine its size. In that regard, the concept of ‘indirect enterprise partner’ is not included in Recommendation 2003/361.

Moreover, the words ‘enterprise in question’ cannot be interpreted as covering all the enterprises from which data should be collected. Apart from the fact that that interpretation is not consistent with the objective of Recommendation 2003/361, which is to determine the size of the enterprise in question and not the sizes of those enterprises which have links with it, it could lead, in certain cases, to there being no limit as to the consideration of the data of the enterprises situated either upstream or downstream of the enterprise in question.

(see paras 44, 47)