# C_2014315EN.01004301.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/43

---

Appeal brought on 24 July 2014 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2014 in Case T-198/12 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

(Case C-360/14P)

2014/C 315/70

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents, U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 May 2014 in Case T-198/12 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2012/160/EU of 1 March 2012 concerning the national provisions notified by the German Federal Government maintaining the limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys beyond the entry into application of Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys (1), in so far as the Court dismissed the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 May 2014 in Case T-198/12 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2012/160/EU of 1 March 2012 concerning the national provisions notified by the German Federal Government maintaining the limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys beyond the entry into application of Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys (1), in so far as the Court dismissed the action;

Federal Republic of Germany

European Commission

1

| 2. | Annul Commission Decision 2012/160/EU of 1 March 2012 in so far as the national provisions notified for maintenance of the limit values for antimony, arsenic and mercury are not approved; in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annul Commission Decision 2012/160/EU of 1 March 2012 in so far as the national provisions notified for maintenance of the limit values for antimony, arsenic and mercury are not approved; in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

| 3. | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal in total:

| | First ground of appeal: The General Court infringed Article 114(4) TFEU in three ways. It failed to respect the principle of the autonomous Member State risk assessment, in so far as it held, due to the fact that the measures notified by the appellant were based on an irregular risk assessment, that they were unsuitable. In addition, the Court unlawfully demanded proof that the level of protection guaranteed by Directive 2009/48/EC is in itself insufficient. Finally, the Court’s findings are based on an incorrect understanding of the law in so far as it precluded a quantitative comparison of the level of protection based on limit values. |
| --- | --- |

First ground of appeal: The General Court infringed Article 114(4) TFEU in three ways. It failed to respect the principle of the autonomous Member State risk assessment, in so far as it held, due to the fact that the measures notified by the appellant were based on an irregular risk assessment, that they were unsuitable. In addition, the Court unlawfully demanded proof that the level of protection guaranteed by Directive 2009/48/EC is in itself insufficient. Finally, the Court’s findings are based on an incorrect understanding of the law in so far as it precluded a quantitative comparison of the level of protection based on limit values.

First ground of appeal:

| | Second ground of appeal: The General Court infringed the obligation to state the reasons on which a judgment is based under Articles 36 and 53(1) of the Statute of the Court. First, its statement of reasons relating to Table 1 submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany is inconsistent in so far as it refers on the one hand to alleged errors in calculation and on the other hand to an alleged error in measurement. Secondly, the statement of reasons is insufficient since the Court accepts that the comparison of migration limit values submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany fail to demonstrate a high level of protection, without examining the significance of the category of materials capable of being removed by scraping. |
| --- | --- |

Second ground of appeal: The General Court infringed the obligation to state the reasons on which a judgment is based under Articles 36 and 53(1) of the Statute of the Court. First, its statement of reasons relating to Table 1 submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany is inconsistent in so far as it refers on the one hand to alleged errors in calculation and on the other hand to an alleged error in measurement. Secondly, the statement of reasons is insufficient since the Court accepts that the comparison of migration limit values submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany fail to demonstrate a high level of protection, without examining the significance of the category of materials capable of being removed by scraping.

Second ground of appeal:

| | Third ground of appeal: The Court distorted the facts and/or the evidence in three ways. First, the contents of Table 3 submitted by the appellant are clearly misconstrued. In addition, the Court clearly wrongfully assumes that the Table of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment submitted by the appellant contains unreliable data. Finally, the Court clearly misconstrued the Report of the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) of 1 July 2010, in so far as it deduced from that report a statement concerning the reliability of bioavailability limit values, which clearly was not made by SCHER. |
| --- | --- |

Third ground of appeal: The Court distorted the facts and/or the evidence in three ways. First, the contents of Table 3 submitted by the appellant are clearly misconstrued. In addition, the Court clearly wrongfully assumes that the Table of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment submitted by the appellant contains unreliable data. Finally, the Court clearly misconstrued the Report of the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) of 1 July 2010, in so far as it deduced from that report a statement concerning the reliability of bioavailability limit values, which clearly was not made by SCHER.

Third ground of appeal:

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 80, p. 19.

1

---