Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/1639

(Case C-122/25 P)

(C/2025/1639)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: BASF SE, Nouryon Functional Chemicals BV (represented by: J.-P. Montfort and P. Chopova-Leprêtre, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, European Chemicals Agency and Dow Europe GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—set aside the Judgement under appeal delivered by the Sixth Chamber of the GC of 27 November 2024 in Case T-453/22 ‘BASF v Commission’;

—annul the Contested Regulation or refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the Application for annulment of the Contested Regulation;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellants rely on four pleas in law:

First Plea: The General Court erred in interpreting Section 3.7.2.2.1 of Annex I to CLP and concluding that DTPA has ‘an intrinsic, specific property to produce an adverse effect on reproduction’. This error deprived the disputed provision of effectiveness and effet utile, and allowed the classification of DTPA in breach of CLP.

Second Plea: The General Court erred in determining the correct 'level of certainty' required by Section 3.7.2.1.1 and Table 3.7.1(a) of Annex I to CLP to classify DTPA as reproductive toxicant in Category 1B. This error allowed the improper classification of the Substance in a hazard category that requires a high level of certainty, on the basis of data and scientific evidence that identify multiple uncertainties and doubts. The GC also distorted some main arguments and evidence at first instance, specifically on the ‘strong presumption’ that DTPA ‘has the capacity’ to harm reproduction in humans.

Third Plea: The General Court erred in defining the responsibility of the Commission pursuant to Article 37(5) of CLP to establish that the classification of DTPA is appropriate and meets the classification criteria in Section 3.7 of Annex I to CLP. Consequently, the GC erred in ruling that the Applicants at first instance failed to demonstrate (i) the disruption of maternal zinc homeostasis in pregnant rats, and (ii) the absence of a strong presumption that DTPA can harm reproduction in humans.

Fourth Plea: The General Court insufficiently reasoned its conclusion on the interpretation of the rules for the conduct of public consultation pursuant to Article 37(4) of CLP, and failed to state reasons on several other instances in the Judgement under appeal.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1639/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—