Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)

18 December 2020 (*)

(Action for annulment — Application lodged via e-Curia — Article 56a(4) of the Rules of Procedure — Failure to fulfil procedural requirements — Manifest inadmissibility)

In Case T‑605/20,

Plzeňská teplárenská, a.s. established in Pilsen (Czech Republic), represented by R. Varga, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA),

defendant,

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision TPE-C-2114513534-56-01/F of ECHA of 10 March 2020 on designation of the registrants to perform tests required pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3) concerning the substance Ashes (residues),

THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of S. Gervasoni (Rapporteur), President, R. Frendo and J. Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

 Procedure and form of order sought by the applicant

1        By application lodged at the Court Registry on 1 September 2020, the applicant, Plzeňská teplárenská, a.s, brought the present action.

2        The applicant claims that the Court should:

–        annul the decision TPE-C-2114513534-56-01/F of ECHA on designation of the registrants to perform tests required pursuant to Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3) concerning the substance Ashes (residues);

–        order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

 Law

3        Under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, where an action is manifestly inadmissible, the Court may, on a proposal from the Judge‑Rapporteur, at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.

4        In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information available to it from the material in the file and has decided to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.

5        Under Article 56a(4) of the Rules of Procedure, if a procedural document is lodged via e-Curia before the supporting documents required for validation of the access account have been produced, those supporting documents must be received in paper format at the Registry of the General Court within 10 days of the procedural document being lodged. This time limit may not be extended and Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure does not apply. If the supporting documents are not received within the prescribed time limit, the Court is to declare the procedural document lodged via e-Curia to be inadmissible.

6        In that regard, it must be noted that, on 1 September, an application was lodged via e-Curia before the supporting documents required for validation of the access account had been produced.

7        The supporting documents were received at the Court Registry in paper format on 8 September 2020.

8        As expressly stated in the Conditions of Use of e-Curia, note of which was declared to have been taken by the applicant’s representative during the procedure for activating the e-Curia account under the special procedure, the representative was required to complete the account request form online, to print it, date it, sign it by hand and to send the paper version by registered post or have it physically delivered to the Court Registry, together with the necessary supporting documents.

9        In the present case, the e-Curia account request form received at the Court Registry was not accompanied by the necessary supporting documents, as a copy of the identity card or passport of the representative was missing.

10      It follows from the above considerations that the lodging of the application via e‑Curia does not satisfy the requirements of Article 56a(4) of the Rules of Procedure and that the present action must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, without there being any need for it to be served on the defendant.

 Costs

11      Since the present order was made prior to service of the application on the defendant and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant must bear its own costs, in accordance with Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)

hereby orders:

1.      The action is dismissed.

2.      Plzeňská teplárenská, a.s. shall bear its own costs.

Luxembourg, 18 December 2020.

* Language of the case: English.

© European Union
The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.