Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/18

—

(Case C-702/21 P)

(2022/C 64/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Laboratoire Pareva (represented by: P. Sellar, K. Van Maldegem, advocaten, M. Grunchard, S. Englebert, M. Ombredane, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Biotech3D Ltd & Co. KG, European Commission, French Republic, European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—order a measure of inquiry under Article 64(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for production of a written transcript of the oral hearing held before the General Court;

—set aside the judgment under appeal, and

—annul the contested acts and award the costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court to the Appellant or award the costs of this appeal to the Appellant and refer the cases back to the General Court for re-consideration.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.The General Court failed to raise ex officio the lack of an adequate statement of reasons.

The General Court erred in law by failing in its duty to raise ex officio a plea pertaining to the adequacy of the statement of reasons in the contested acts and thus to assess such point of law. The General Court concluded that ‘the teratogenic effect, and not the subacute toxicity by inhalation, is the decisive factor for the assessment of the unacceptable risks for human health posed by Pareva’s PHMB’ (paragraph 133) in spite of the fact that there is no reference to that factor in the statement of reasons pertaining to the contested acts. In accordance with the settled case law of the Court, the General Court had a duty to consider and conclude on whether the contested acts were vitiated by a failure of the Defendant to provide an adequate statement of reasons by reference to the alleged teratogenicity factor as required by Article 296 TFEU.

2.The General Court distorted the clear sense of the facts

The General Court distorted the clear sense of the facts by holding that the substance at issue is teratogenic and that the Appellant did not contest that the teratogenicity effect was the decisive human health factor in the adoption of the contested acts. That conclusion manifestly distorted the facts on record before the General Court and the statements made at the oral hearing, which consequently led to a distortion of the General Court’s assessment of the lawfulness of the contested acts.

—