EU News
 Printable version
|
The General Court annuls the regulation on the energy labelling of vacuum cleaners
Tests of a vacuum cleaner’s energy efficiency carried out with an empty receptacle do not reflect conditions as close as possible to actual conditions of use.
Since 1 September 2014, all vacuum cleaners sold in the EU have been subject to energy labelling requirements, the detailed rules of which were fixed by the Commission in a regulation (‘the regulation’) supplementing the Directive on energy labelling (‘the directive’). The energy labelling is aimed, among other things, at informing consumers of energy efficiency levels and cleaning performances of vacuum cleaners. The regulation does not provide for testing of vacuum cleaners with the dust receptacle loaded.
The company Dyson Ltd (‘Dyson’) markets bagless vacuum cleaners. Dyson argues that the regulation will mislead consumers as to the energy efficiency of vacuum cleaners, because the performance is not measured ‘during use’ but only with an empty receptacle. According to Dyson, in adopting the regulation, the Commission, therefore, disregarded an essential element of the directive which requires the method for calculating a vacuum cleaner’s energy performance to reflect normal conditions of use. Dyson brought an action before the General Court for annulment of the regulation. By judgment of 11 November 2015, the General Court dismissed the action.
Dyson brought an appeal which the Court of Justice allowed by judgment of 11 May 2017. The Court of Justice held that the General Court had mischaracterised one of Dyson’s arguments in finding that Dyson was challenging the exercise of the Commission’s competence to adopt the regulation at issue. In the view of the Court of Justice, it was clear beyond dispute that Dyson argued that the Commission was not competent to adopt that regulation. According to Dyson, it was a question of a failure to have regard to an essential element of the directive, not a manifest error of assessment by the Commission. The Court of Justice therefore referred the case back to the General Court for it to rule on Dyson’s argument.
Click here for full press release
