Official Journal of the European Union

Series C

—

C/2023/1429

18.12.2023

(Case C-353/23 P)

(C/2023/1429)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Nouryon Performance Formulations BV (represented by: R. Cana, R. Spangenberg, avocats and Z. Romata, solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden and European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-868/19 in its entirety;

—Annul the Contested Decision;

—Alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant’s application for annulment;

—Order the Respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, and those of the Interveners.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the Appeal, the Appellant relies on eight grounds of appeal:

1)The General Court made an error of law by misinterpreting Sections 8.7, 8.7.2 and 8.7.3 of Annex X to REACH by concluding that the Commission has no duty to assess the relevance of the requested tests towards the facts in the specific case and failed to assess the applicability of Article 1(1), Article 10(a), Article 12(1), Article 13(4) and Article 41 of REACH to the information requirements set out in Sections 8.7.2 and 8.7.3 of Annex X to REACH;

2)The General Court made an error of law by misinterpreting and misapplying the standard of review when assessing whether the requested information could result in relevant information on the Substance, depriving the Appellant of its right to an effective judicial remedy;

3)The General Court made an error of law by failing to assess whether the arguments on the technical feasibility of the requested tests are founded;

4)The General Court distorted the evidence before it when it assessed whether the requested information could result in relevant information on the Substance;

5)The General Court failed to state reasons when concluding the requested information could result in relevant information on the Substance;

6)The General Court made an error of law by concluding that a ‘particular concern’ has been demonstrated by the Commission to request the inclusion of the additional cohorts 2A and 2B to the EOGRTS;

7)The General Court made an error of law by misinterpreting and misapplying Column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex X to REACH to conclude that a DRF study can be requested under that provision; and

8)The General Court distorted evidence when concluding that less animals could be sacrificed if cohorts 2A and 2B are not required based on the results from the DRF study and therefore objectives of Article 25(1) of REACH are not disregarded.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1429/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—