11.4.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/24

—

(Case C-71/23 P)

(2023/C 127/30)

Languages of the case: German and English

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: B. Fodda, J.-L. Carré, G. Bain, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, CWS Powder Coatings GmbH, Billions Europe Ltd, Cinkarna Metalurško-kemična Industrija Celje d.d. (Cinkarna Celje d.d.), Evonik Operations GmbH, Kronos Titan GmbH, Precheza a.s., Tayca Corp., Tronox Pigments (Holland) BV, Venator Germany GmbH, Brillux GmbH & Co. KG, Daw SE, Ettengruber GmbH Abbruch und Tiefbau, Ettengruber GmbH Recycling und Verwertung, TIGER Coatings GmbH & Co. KG, Conseil Européen de l’Industrie Chimique — European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), Conseil Européen de l’Industrie des Peintures, des Encres d’Imprimerie et des Couleurs d’Art (CEPE), British Coatings Federation Ltd (BCF), American Coatings Association, Inc. (ACA), Mytilineos SA, Delfi-Distomon Anonymos Metalleytiki Etaireia, Sto SE & Co. KGaA, Rembrandtin Coatings GmbH, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden, European Chemicals Agency, Republic of Slovenia, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 23 November 2022 in Joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission and Case T-283/20 Billions Europe and Others v Commission;

—give judgment itself on the matter and dismiss the actions brought at first instance by CWS Powder Coatings GmbH, Billions Europe Ltd, Brillux GmbH & Co. KG and Daw SE in Cases T-279/20, T-283/20 and T-288/20 or, if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit final judgment to be given, refer the cases back to the General Court;

—order CWS Powder Coatings GmbH, Billions Europe Ltd, Brillux GmbH & Co KG and Daw SE to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the French Government relies on four grounds of appeal:

First ground of appeal: in classifying the Heinrich study as a ‘decisive study’, the General Court, first, distorted the evidence submitted to it and, secondly, erred in law by disregarding the principles laid down in Regulation No 1272/2008 concerning the classification of substances as carcinogenic, namely, the principle of evaluation of strength of evidence and consideration of all other relevant information to place substances with human cancer potential into various hazard categories.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court exceeded the limits of judicial review by going beyond an assessment of manifest error and by substituting its own assessment for that of the Committee for Risk Assessment of the European Chemicals Agency.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons.

Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in holding that Section 3.6.2.2.1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (1) had to be interpreted as precluding a substance from being regarded as having the intrinsic property to cause cancer if the carcinogenicity of that substance arises where there is a certain quantity of particles.

Regulation 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).

—