Федеральный верховный суд ЕС: приостановление включения компании в список поставщиков активного вещества

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT

14 September 2026 ( * )

( Interim measures – Biocidal products – List of active substances and their suppliers provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 – Inclusion of a company in the list as an authorised supplier of the active substance N‑(3‑aminopropyl)‑N‑dodecylpropane‑1,3‑diamine in product-types 2 to 4 – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency )

In Case T‑359/26 R, YOU Solutions Germany GmbH, established in Hanover (Germany), represented by A. Dootalieva, M. Grunchard, A. Kila and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers, applicant, v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), represented by C. Buchanan and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, defendant, THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT having regard to the order of 16 June 2026, YOU Solutions Germany v ECHA (T‑359/26 R, not published), makes the following

Order

1 By its application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant, YOU Solutions Germany GmbH, seeks, first, suspension of the operation of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 26 March 2026, by which the latter included Global Amines Germany GmbH as an authorised supplier of the active substance N‑(3‑aminopropyl)‑N‑dodecylpropane‑1,3‑diamine (‘diamine’) in product-types 2 to 4 in the list of active substances and their suppliers provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1) (‘the contested decision’) and, second, the grant of any other interim measures which the President of the General Court may consider appropriate.

Background to the dispute and forms of order sought

2 The applicant is a company governed by German law.

3 As is apparent from recital 1 of Regulation No 528/2012, biocidal products are necessary for the control of organisms that are harmful to human or animal health and for the control of organisms that cause damage to natural or manufactured materials, but can pose risks to humans, animals and the environment due to their intrinsic properties and associated use patterns.

4 Diamine is a biocidal product used in product-type 2, namely disinfectants and algaecides not intended for direct application to humans or animals, for the disinfection of surfaces, materials, equipment, and swimming pools not intended for direct contact with food or feed, in product-type 3, namely veterinary hygiene products, for the disinfection, inter alia, of animal housing, transport and mouths and, in product-type 4, namely areas in contact with food and feed, for the disinfection of equipment, containers and surfaces associated with the production or consumption of food and feed. The product marketed by the applicant under the name ‘Lbac 12’ is primarily used as a disinfectant and cleaner for both small, high-touch areas and larger surfaces, such as floors, walls, and the external surfaces of manufacturing equipment.

5 Since the entry into force of Regulation No 528/2012, certain tasks concerning the functioning of that regulation have been entrusted, under Article 74 of that regulation, to ECHA, established by 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).

6 According to the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 95(1) of Regulation No 528/2012, under the conditions laid down therein, as of 1 September 2013, ECHA is to make publicly available and regularly update a list of all active substances, and all substances generating an active substance.

7 On 23 March 2026, Global Amines Germany submitted to ECHA an application for inclusion in the list referred to in Article 95 of Regulation No 528/2012 as a supplier of diamine in product-types 2 to 4, referring to the corresponding ‘complete substance dossier’.

8 In the course of those proceedings, ECHA informed Global Amines Germany that inclusion in the list referred to in Article 95 of Regulation No 528/2012 could entail an obligation for it to pay compensation to the owner of the data concerned.

9 On 26 March 2026, ECHA decided to include Global Amines Germany in the list referred to in Article 95 of Regulation No 528/2012 as a supplier of diamine in product-types 2 to 4.

10 On 31 March 2026, the update to the list referred to in Article 95 of Regulation No 528/2012 was published.

11 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 5 June 2026, the applicant brought an action for annulment of the contested decision.

12 By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 June 2026, the applicant brought the present application for interim measures, in which it claims, in essence, that the President of the General Court should:

– suspend the operation of the contested decision, pending the decision of the General Court on the action in the main proceedings;

– grant any other interim measures as appropriate and hold a hearing as needed;

– order ECHA to pay all the costs.

13 In its observations on the application for interim measures, which were lodged at the Court Registry on 30 June 2026, ECHA contends that the President of the General Court should:

– reject the application for interim measures;

– order the applicant to pay all the costs and expenses incurred for the purposes of the present proceedings.

Law

General considerations

14 It is apparent from reading Articles 278 and 279 TFEU together with Article 256(1) TFEU that the judge hearing an application for interim measures may, if he or she considers that the circumstances so require, order that the operation of a measure challenged before the General Court be suspended or prescribe any necessary interim measures pursuant to Article 156 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. Nevertheless, Article 278 TFEU establishes the principle that actions do not have suspensory effect, since acts adopted by the institutions of the European Union are presumed to be lawful. It is therefore only exceptionally that the judge hearing an application for interim measures may order the suspension of operation of an act challenged before the General Court or prescribe any interim measures (order of 19 July 2016, Belgium v Commission , T‑131/16 R, EU:T:2016:427, paragraph 12).

15 The first sentence of Article 156(4) of the Rules of Procedure provides that an application for interim measures must state ‘the subject matter of the proceedings, the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure applied for’.

16 The judge hearing an application for interim measures may order suspension of operation of an act and other interim measures, if it is established that such an order is justified, prima facie, in fact and in law, and that it is urgent in so far as, in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the interests of the party requesting the interim measures, it must be made and produce its effects before a decision is reached in the main action. Those conditions are cumulative, and consequently an application for interim measures must be rejected if any one of them is not satisfied. The judge hearing an application for interim measures is also to undertake, when necessary, a weighing of the competing interests (see order of 2 March 2016, Evonik Degussa v Commission , C‑162/15 P-R, EU:C:2016:142, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).

17 In the context of that overall examination, the judge hearing the application for interim measures enjoys a broad discretion and is free to determine, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the manner and order in which those various conditions are to be examined, there being no rule of law imposing a pre-established scheme of analysis within which the need to order interim measures must be assessed (see order of 19 July 2012, Akhras v Council , C‑110/12 P(R), not published, EU:C:2012:507, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).

18 Having regard to the material in the case file, the President of the General Court considers that he has all the information needed to rule on the present application for interim measures without there being any need first to hear oral argument from the parties.

19 In the circumstances of the present case, and without it being necessary to rule on the admissibility of the present application for interim measures, it is appropriate to examine first whether the condition of urgency is satisfied.

The condition of urgency

20 In order to determine whether the interim measures sought are urgent, it should be noted that the purpose of the procedure for interim relief is to guarantee the full effectiveness of the future final decision, in order to prevent a lacuna in the legal protection afforded by the EU judicature. To attain that objective, urgency must generally be assessed in the light of the need for an interlocutory order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting the interim measures. That party must demonstrate that it cannot await the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering serious and irreparable damage (see, to that effect, order of 14 January 2016, AGC Glass Europe and Others v Commission , C‑517/15 P-R, EU:C:2016:21, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

21 It is in the light of those criteria that it must be examined whether the applicant has succeeded in demonstrating urgency.

22 In the present case, the applicant relies, first, on the specific and unique circumstances of the present case. It states that it occupies a distinctly vulnerable position on the market for diamine.

23 According to the applicant, the vulnerability of its situation on the EU market is, moreover, inseparable from the prima facie case. The following considerations are particularly important in that regard. First, the contested decision was adopted in the context of an unprecedented and unintended legal vacuum, caused by the delayed publication of the Commission Proposal and the accelerated adoption by ECHA of that decision. Second, that situation is further aggravated by the fact that, during the transitional period, certain key markets in the European Union for diamine supply had only limited market entry requirements. Third, the applicant claims that ECHA completely disregarded the ‘Every Effort and Secrecy Agreement’ that it had concluded with Global Amines Germany. Fourth, that decision creates precisely the cost disadvantage that the regime under Article 95 of Regulation No 528/2012 was designed to prevent, namely companies that are not participating in the review of diamine under that regulation entering into the market in question without bearing equivalent data-generation and compliance costs, free-riding on the applicant’s investments and undercutting prices. That is the opposite of the EU legislature’s intention to create a level playing field on the market, in accordance with recital 58 of that regulation.

24 Consequently, according to the applicant, the interim measures sought are necessary to avoid not only a loss of revenue, but also the erosion of its position on the EU market and of its exclusive proprietary rights. It submits, in essence, that the contested decision causes it to suffer serious commercial damage and an irrevocable loss of that position. Such damage transcends ordinary financial loss and cannot be cured by subsequent judicial relief.

25 Second, the applicant claims that, if the interim measures sought were not granted, it would suffer, in particular, two types of serious and irreparable damage.

26 In the first place, the applicant claims that it already suffers objectively significant legal damage in the form of the loss, first, of its proprietary right to refuse the sharing of data, which are not subject to mandatory data sharing under Article 95(3) of Regulation No 528/2012, in particular the data on physical and chemical properties of diamine, on analytical methods and on efficacy, that is to say, its right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and, second, of the effective benefit of the data-sharing mechanism under Articles 62 and 63 of that regulation.

27 In the second place, the applicant submits that it will suffer significant financial and commercial damage as a result of the loss of its position on the EU market for diamine to the benefit of Global Amines Germany, all of which is exacerbated in a context in which raw material prices and logistical costs have risen markedly due to the exceptional geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. It states that, because of the financial and commercial losses incurred and the resulting pressure on its profit margins, it will be compelled to withdraw from the review procedure for diamine.

28 Last, the applicant submits that several significant obstacles of a structural or legal nature prevent it from reinstating its legal, financial and commercial position.

29 ECHA disputes the applicant’s arguments.

30 In that regard, in the first place, as regards the specific and unique circumstances of the present case, it should be recalled that Article 95(5) of Regulation No 528/2012 provides that all data protection periods for active substance/product-type combinations listed in Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 2007 L 325, p. 3), but for which a decision on inclusion in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1) was not taken before 1 September 2013, are to end on 31 December 2025.

31 In addition, according to recital 7 of Regulation (EU) 2026/1165 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2026 amending Regulation No 528/2012 as regards the extension of certain data protection periods (OJ L, 2026/1165), following the expiry of the protection periods on 31 December 2025, the data concerned were unprotected in the period from 1 January 2026 to 15 June 2026. During the period in which the data concerned were unprotected, alternative substance suppliers and product suppliers have been included in the list referred to in Article 95 of Regulation No 528/2012. Since those suppliers could have benefitted from the costs incurred by the participants in the review of that product to generate such data, paragraph 5 of that article was amended to allow data owners to claim compensation from those substance suppliers and those product suppliers, if they find it appropriate.

32 Thus, the structure of the market which was based directly on the provisions of Regulation No 528/2012, relied on by the applicant as specific and unique circumstances of the present case, was called into question by Regulation No 2026/1165, which, moreover, the applicant does not dispute.

33 In the second place, as regards the applicant’s argument that it already suffers objectively significant legal damage, it should be borne in mind that, according to the case-law, the argument that damage is, by definition, irreparable because it falls within the scope of fundamental freedoms cannot be accepted since it is not sufficient to allege infringement of fundamental rights in the abstract for the purpose of establishing that the damage which could result would necessarily be irreparable (see, to that effect, order of 10 September 2013, Commission v Pilkington Group , C‑278/13 P(R), EU:C:2013:558, paragraph 40).

34 It is true that breach of certain fundamental rights, such as the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment enshrined in Article 4 of the Charter, may, on account of the very nature of the right violated, in itself give rise to serious and irreparable damage. However, the fact remains that it is always for the party requesting the adoption of interim measures to set out and establish the likelihood of such damage occurring in his or her particular case (see, to that effect, order of 10 September 2013, Commission v Pilkington Group , C‑278/13 P(R), EU:C:2013:558, paragraph 41).

35 The assessment of whether serious and irreparable damage would be caused to the party requesting the adoption of interim measures in order to prevent access to data which are not subject to mandatory data sharing under Article 95(3) of Regulation No 528/2012, or to retain the effective benefit of the data-sharing mechanism provided for in Articles 62 and 63 of that regulation, depends on a combination of factors, such as, inter alia, how significant the data concerned are in commercial terms for the undertaking which provided those data and the usefulness of those data for other market participants (see, to that effect and by analogy, order of 10 September 2013, Commission v Pilkington Group , C‑278/13 P(R), EU:C:2013:558, paragraph 42).

36 In the present case, the applicant maintains that it is not claiming that the damage associated with its right to property under Article 17 of the Charter is, by definition, irreparable simply because it falls within the scope of fundamental freedoms, but confines itself to alleging that the significance of the data concerned in commercial terms is indisputable and that data relating to physical and chemical properties, analytical methods and efficacy are of considerable value to other suppliers, such as Global Amines Germany.

37 Thus, according to the applicant, the contested decision irrevocably negates the effectiveness of its right to refuse the sharing of proprietary data that are not subject to mandatory sharing under Article 95(3) of Regulation No 528/2012. That right is, by default, an exclusionary property right, enabling it exclusively to control, use and exploit the data generated at their owner’s expense, and is protected as a ‘right to property’ within the meaning of Article 17 of the Charter. According to the applicant, that decision also negates the effectiveness of its right to follow the normal data-sharing process under Articles 62 and 63 of that regulation. Last, the applicant submits that that decision unlawfully places it in a disadvantageous position as regards any data-sharing negotiations once data protection is reinstated.

38 In that regard, first, it should be noted, as observed by ECHA, that the right to property, as recognised in Article 17 of the Charter, is not absolute. The obstacles to the exercise of that right, including the economic right of disposal which the applicant claims to have in respect of the ‘complete substance dossier’, stem directly from Regulation No 528/2012.

39 Second, as regards the significance of the data concerned in commercial terms, it is true that the applicant has invested at least EUR 2.3 million in generating its own data, including studies on analytical methods and efficacy.

40 However, it must be observed that, on the date on which the action in the main proceedings was brought, no protection of the data at issue applied to the complete dossier relating to diamine, on account of the expiry of the data protection provided for in Article 95(5) of Regulation No 528/2012 on 31 December 2025.

41 In addition, it must be stated that the applicant knew or ought reasonably to have known that the data protection period at issue was due to expire on 31 December 2025. As a result, it could have taken the necessary proactive measures.

42 Third, in the light of Regulation No 2026/1165, the applicant will have to tolerate the presence of competitors for the substance in question because, following the expiry of the protection periods on 31 December 2025, the data concerned are not protected during the period from 1 January 2026 to 15 June 2026.

43 Consequently, the data at issue not being protected in that manner corresponds to a factual situation that has been confirmed by Regulation No 2026/1165.

44 Fourth, the objectives of Article 95 of Regulation No 528/2012 are to provide for the fair compensation of participants in the substance review procedure which are data owners and to avoid the establishment of monopolies and a disproportionate protection period, by providing for the possibility for other economic operators freely to use the data from 1 January 2026 in order to access the market more easily and to reduce the costs for the producers of biocidal products that buy active substances from the suppliers and ultimately for the users of the biocidal products.

45 Consequently, it must be held that Regulation No 528/2012 is not intended to perpetuate monopolies so far as concerns access to the data at issue.

46 In the third place, as regards the serious and irreparable financial damage alleged by the applicant, it is settled case-law that, where the damage referred to is of a financial nature, the interim measures sought are justified where, in the absence of those measures, the applicant would be in a position that would imperil its financial viability before final judgment is given in the main action, or where its market share would be affected substantially in the light, inter alia, of the size and turnover of its undertaking and the characteristics of the group to which it belongs (see order of 25 February 2025, WebGroup Czech Republic v Commission , C‑620/24 P(R), EU:C:2025:136, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).

47 In the event of purely financial damage, the interim measure sought will be justified only if it appears that, without such a measure, the applicant would be in a position that could imperil its existence before final judgment is given in the main action (order of 3 December 2002, Neue Erba Lautex v Commission , T‑181/02 R, EU:T:2002:294, paragraph 84). Since imminent disappearance from the market does indeed constitute damage that is both irremediable and serious, adoption of the interim measure sought appears justified in such a situation.

48 While account has also been taken of the fact that, if the measure sought were not granted, the applicant’s market share would be irremediably affected, it must be pointed out that this situation can be placed on an equal footing with that of the risk of disappearance from the market and justify adoption of the interim measure sought only if the irremediable effect on market share is also of a serious nature. It is therefore not sufficient that a market share may be irremediably lost by an undertaking; rather, it is necessary for that market share to be sufficiently large in the light of, in particular, the size of that undertaking, regard being had to the characteristics of the group to which it belongs through its shareholders. An applicant who invokes the loss of such a market share must demonstrate, furthermore, that regaining a significant proportion of that share is impossible by reason of obstacles of a structural or legal nature (see order of 28 April 2009, United Phosphorus v Commission , T‑95/09 R, not published, EU:T:2009:124, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

49 In the present case, the applicant states that Global Amines Germany has long acted as the applicant’s toll manufacturer and therefore possesses detailed knowledge of the product specifications, manufacturing requirements, required biocidal volumes and its customer base, including its key customers. According to the applicant, Global Amines Germany manufactures, on the applicant’s order, the products in a facility belonging to it and delivers them directly to the applicant’s customers. In those circumstances, Global Amines Germany can approach the applicant’s EU customers and offer them equivalent products, at lower prices, owing to its greater pricing flexibility as a manufacturer. The applicant adds that Global Amines Germany can price the applicant out of the EU market for diamine, since the applicant’s cost base necessarily incorporates fixed margin layers arising from its reliance on toll manufacturing. It states that its ten largest customers account for approximately 70% of the total sales of its product known as ‘Lbac 12’, with an average margin of 20%, and that Global Amines Germany can profitably offer equivalent products at prices which the applicant cannot match. It concludes that, once distribution channels and long-term commercial relationships shift, the resulting loss of market position is unlikely to be reversible, even if the applicant ultimately succeeds on the merits of the main action. As a result, it argues that the financial damage on which it relies is serious and irreparable.

50 In addition, the applicant submits that the damage must also be assessed in the light of the exceptional geopolitical and economic circumstances of the present case. It states that Global Amines Germany is its sole viable toll manufacturer, since the manufacture of diamine-based products requires specialised facilities, established raw material supply chains and significant technical expertise. It states that it is therefore left in a position of dependency on Global Amines Germany, a free-riding competitor, in order to maintain production within the territory of the European Union. Without that arrangement, the applicant submits that it would be compelled to rely on imports from Chinese manufacturers.

51 According to the applicant, in an increasingly fragile geopolitical context, any trade or diplomatic disruption between the European Union and the People’s Republic of China would expose the applicant to significant supply risks. In such circumstances, the applicant argues that it would lack the necessary flexibility to compete effectively in the EU market for diamine in which it is already at a disadvantage vis-à-vis vertically integrated producers.

52 Consequently, the causal link between the contested decision and the damage to the applicant is direct. According to the applicant, in the current geopolitical environment, that decision triggers immediate commercial displacement and poses risks to future security of supply, consequences which cannot be undone by a subsequent decision on the merits. If the interim measures sought were not granted, the decision in the main proceedings would be deprived of practical effect.

53 Last, the applicant claims that, if the interim measures sought were not granted, it will be unable to maintain the share in the EU market for diamine which it lawfully secured through its investments in the review procedure for that biocidal product. It argues that, notwithstanding the substantial costs incurred in generating the required data, it will be forced to withdraw from that procedure if it is priced out of that market by Global Amines Germany, since its continued participation in that procedure would no longer be economically viable.

54 In that regard, it must be stated that, in the present case, the applicant has presented a fragmentary and incomplete picture of its financial situation, providing only uncertified turnover figures for certain territories. Furthermore, Annex R5 to the application for interim measures does not state the name of the company to which the commercial data contained therein relate. No information is provided as to the share of the EU market for diamine held by the applicant or as to the market share which it risks losing.

55 Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any more precise details regarding the financial situation of the group to which the applicant belongs. As a result, the judge hearing the application for interim measures is not in a position to assess the likely consequences of not granting the interim measures sought.

56 Admittedly, it follows from the case-law that financial damage which is objectively considerable, or even not insignificant, may be regarded as serious, without it being necessary in every case to relate that damage to the turnover of the undertaking which fears suffering it. Thus, the fact that an applicant failed to provide, in the application for interim measures, information concerning the size of the undertaking to which it belongs is not in itself sufficient to justify rejection of that application on the ground that the applicant failed to establish the seriousness of the alleged damage (see, to that effect, order of 7 March 2013, EDF v Commission , C‑551/12 P(R), EU:C:2013:157, paragraphs 32 and 33).

57 It is also true that, when evaluating the seriousness of financial damage, the judge hearing the application for interim measures cannot confine himself or herself to having recourse, in a mechanical and rigid manner, solely to the relevant turnover or market shares, but must also examine the circumstances of each case (see, to that effect, order of 11 April 2001, Commission v Cambridge Healthcare Supplies , C‑471/00 P(R), EU:C:2001:218, paragraph 114).

58 Similarly, it cannot be overlooked that, for several months now, the global economy has been experiencing an economic and financial crisis, inter alia as a result of the exceptional geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. According to the applicant, in that increasingly fragile geopolitical context, any trade or diplomatic disruption between the European Union and China would expose the applicant to significant supply risks. Those risks are further compounded by rising raw material and supply costs linked to ongoing tensions in the Middle East.

59 However, it must be stated that, despite Global Amines Germany’s entry into the EU market as a supplier of diamine in product-types 2 to 4 and the possible weakening of its position on that market, the applicant may continue, with regard to those product-types, to benefit from its well-established relationships with its suppliers and customers.

60 Moreover, the contested decision does not necessarily grant the addressee automatic access to the market. In accordance with Article 89(2) of Regulation No 528/2012, a Member State may continue to apply its current system or practice of making available on the market or using a given biocidal product while the evaluation provided for under the review programme is ongoing. Thus, Global Amines Germany and its potential customers will not easily be able to access certain markets.

61 Furthermore, as regards the difficulties which the applicant claims to encounter because it is not vertically integrated, that it uses a single toll manufacturer and that it does not have an ‘overarching tolling agreement’, which makes its customer base vulnerable, it should be noted that those are commercial choices that are entirely attributable to the applicant.

62 As regards the applicant’s claim that it would be forced to withdraw from the review procedure for diamine on account of the presence of competitors on the EU market, it must be stated that that assertion is not supported by any evidence and would be the result of the applicant’s own choice. In any event, the applicant would remain the owner of the data at issue and could recover part of its investment by seeking compensation and by selling letters of access to its data, following the entry into force of Regulation No 2026/1165.

63 It follows from all of the foregoing that the application for interim measures must be rejected, since the applicant has failed to establish urgency, without it being necessary to rule on whether there is a prima facie case or to weigh up the interests.

64 In addition, it is necessary to reject as inadmissible the head of claim by which the applicant requests an order for any other interim measures deemed appropriate, in accordance with settled case-law to the effect that asking the judge hearing the application for interim measures to adopt any other interim measures, without specifying in what those measures might consist, amounts to asking the judge himself or herself to draw up the form of order which he or she is subsequently supposed to assess (see order of 15 July 2019, 3V Sigma v ECHA , T‑176/19 R, not published, EU:T:2019:547, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

65 Since this order closes the proceedings for interim measures, it is appropriate to cancel the order of 16 June 2026, YOU Solutions Germany v ECHA (T‑359/26 R, not published), adopted on the basis of Article 157(2) of the Rules of Procedure, by which ECHA was ordered to suspend the operation of the contested decision until the adoption of the order bringing the present interim proceedings to an end.

66 Pursuant to Article 158(5) of the Rules of Procedure, the costs must be reserved.

On those grounds, THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT hereby orders:

1. The application for interim measures is rejected.

2. The order of 16 June 2026, YOU Solutions Germany v ECHA (T ‑ 359/26 R), is cancelled.

3. The costs are reserved.

Luxembourg, 14 September 2026.

V. Di Bucci

M. van der Woude

Registrar

President

* Language of the case: English.