# C_2011298EN.01002701.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/27 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 12 August 2011 — ICdA and Others v Commission

(Case T-456/11)

2011/C 298/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: International Cadmium Association (ICdA) (Bruxelles, Belgium), Rockwood Pigments (UK) Ltd (Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom) and James M Brown Ltd (Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Cana and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Contested Act, in so far, as it restricts the use of cadmium pigments in plastic materials, other than those plastic materials in which the use was restricted before the adoption of the Contested Act; and |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Order the Commission to pay all the cost and expenses. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------ |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested regulation infringes Articles 137 (1)(a) and 68-71 of the REACH Regulation( 1 ); | — | that the contested regulation infringes Articles 137 (1)(a) and 68-71 of the REACH Regulation( 1 ); |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested regulation infringes Articles 137 (1)(a) and 68-71 of the REACH Regulation( 1 ); | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested regulation is based on a manifest error of assessment; | — | that the contested regulation is based on a manifest error of assessment; |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested regulation is based on a manifest error of assessment; | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested regulation infringes the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations; | — | that the contested regulation infringes the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations; |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested regulation infringes the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations; | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested regulation infringes REACH regulation in so far as it imposes restrictions on a group of substances, not assessed individually; | — | that the contested regulation infringes REACH regulation in so far as it imposes restrictions on a group of substances, not assessed individually; |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested regulation infringes REACH regulation in so far as it imposes restrictions on a group of substances, not assessed individually; | | |

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested regulation infringes the TBT agreement; | — | that the contested regulation infringes the TBT agreement; |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested regulation infringes the TBT agreement; | | |

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested regulation infringes the applicants’ procedural rights; | — | that the contested regulation infringes the applicants’ procedural rights; |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested regulation infringes the applicants’ procedural rights; | | |

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested regulation is inadequately reasoned, contrary to Article 296 TFEU; | — | that the contested regulation is inadequately reasoned, contrary to Article 296 TFEU; |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested regulation is inadequately reasoned, contrary to Article 296 TFEU; | | |

| 8. | Eight plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested regulation infringes the principle of proportionality. | — | that the contested regulation infringes the principle of proportionality. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested regulation infringes the principle of proportionality. | | |

---

( 1 )  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1)

---