Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/52

(Case C-754/24)

(C/2025/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Fachverband Eisenhüttenschlacken eV (represented by: G. Franßen, Rechtsanwalt, and Professor C. Koenig)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2024 in Case T-560/22, Fachverband Eisenhüttenschlacken v Commission (1)

—order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on the following grounds.

First ground of appeal: infringement of Article 42(7) read in conjunction with Article 42(8) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 (2) on account of the General Court’s legal standard concerning the adoption of ‘normal conditions of use’ as a requirement for issuing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/973 (3) which was challenged at first instance.

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed Article 42(7) read in conjunction with Article 42(8) of Regulation 2019/1009, in which it first did not examine and secondly failed to recognise that the European Commission, in setting the limit values for the total chromium and vanadium in Article 2(3)(a) and (c) of the delegated regulation at issue, had not adopted ‘normal conditions of use’ for ferrous slags used as fertilising products. The General Court was obliged to carry out such an in-depth review since the appellant has called into question through numerous and detailed arguments at first instance the broad margin of assessment and discretion that the General Court recognises the European Commission having.

Second ground of appeal: infringement of the precautionary principle, in particular by committing an error of law in the judicial review of the alleged risks of chromium and vanadium as well as their alleged accumulation in the soil.

Third ground of appeal: infringement of the proportionality principle read in conjunction with the precautionary principle, in particular by committing an error of law by failing to take account of the disproportionate adverse effects of Article 2(3)(a) and (c) of the delegated regulation at issue on the environment, health and economic operators concerned and by failing to take into consideration a much less onerous, and therefore proportionate measure (labelling requirement).

(1) EU:T:2064:610.

(2) Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 laying down rules on the making available on the market of EU fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 (OJ 2019 L 170, p. 1).

(3) Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2022/973 of 14 March 2022 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down criteria on agronomic efficiency and safety for the use of by-products in EU fertilising products (OJ 2022 L 167, p. 29).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/52/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

—

* Language of the case: German.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

15