11.4.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/26

—

(Case C-82/23 P)

(2023/C 127/32)

Languages of the cases: German and English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, A. Dawes, R. Lindenthal and M. Noll-Ehlers, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: 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, French Republic, 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 23 November 2022 in Joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission and in Case T-283/20, Billions Europe and Others v Commission;

—reject the second plea, the first and fifth parts of the seventh plea and the eighth plea in Joined Cases T-279/20 and T-288/20 and the first plea in Case T-283/20;

—refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the pleas not already assessed; and

—reserve the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the European Commission raises three grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal alleges that the General Court erred in law by distorting the evidence before it when concluding that the Committee for Risk Assessment (‘RAC’) of the European Chemicals Agency and the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment as regards the reliability and acceptability of the 1995 animal study by Heinrich et al. (‘Heinrich study’).

The second ground of appeal alleges that the General Court erred in law when it substituted its own assessment for that of the RAC and the Commission when it concluded that the RAC failed to take into account all the relevant factors in order to calculate the lung overload in the Heinrich study.

The third ground of appeal alleges that the General Court erred in law when concluding that the contested classification and labelling did not relate to a substance that has the intrinsic property to cause cancer.

—