EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-121/25 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2025 by Evonik Operations GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2024 in Case T-449/22, Evonik Operations v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025CN0121

62025CN0121

February 5, 2025
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

C series

C/2025/1638

(Case C-121/25 P)

(C/2025/1638)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evonik Operations GmbH (represented by: T. Delille and M. Escorneboueu, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

annul the judgment under appeal;

alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the action for annulment; and

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court erred in law and misrepresented the appellant’s claims in relation to the incorrect and incomplete application of the classification criteria of the CLP Regulation (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>). First of all, it erred in assessing the compliance of the contested classification with the general principle that any hazard supporting a classification must be the consequence of a substance’s intrinsic properties. Second of all, it did not exercise an adequate judicial review of the absence of consideration, by ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (‘RAC’), of the impact of specific testing conditions on the conclusions to derive from the studies supporting the contested classification. Third of all, it did not adequately review the absence of demonstration if the effects relied upon to support the classification were significant. Finally, it erred in assessing the compliance of the read-across relied upon by RAC with the specific provisions of the CLP Regulation.

Second, the General Court erred in law by failing to identify and to sanction the existence of breaches of essential requirements of the harmonised classification and labelling procedure, namely, the infringement of the deadline for adoption of the RAC Opinion and the consultation requirements set out under Article 37(4) of the CLP Regulation.

Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ 2008 L 353, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1638/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia