# 62015CJ0651

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

13 July 2017 (
  *1
  )

*1

(Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) — Article 58(2) — Authorisation — Substances of very high concern — Exemption — Regulation amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation)

In Case C‐651/15 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 4 December 2015,

Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and Others, represented by C. Mereu, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor,

Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and Others

appellants,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

European Commission, represented by K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents,

European Commission

defendant at first instance,

supported by

French Republic, represented by D. Colas and J. Traband, acting as Agents,

French Republic

intervener in the appeal,

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), represented by W. Broere and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents,

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Assogalvanica and Others, represented by C. Mereu, avocat, and J. Beck, solicitor,

Assogalvanica and Others

interveners at first instance,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of E. Regan, President of the Chamber, C.G. Fernlund (Rapporteur) and S. Rodin, Judges,

Advocate General: E. Sharpston,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

Judgment

| 1 | By their appeal, Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and the 185 other appellants whose names are listed in Annex I to the present judgment (collectively, ‘VECCO and Others’) seek to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 September 2015, VECCO and Others v Commission (T‐360/13, ‘the judgment under appeal, EU:T:2015:695) by which that court dismissed their action for partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 of 17 April 2013 amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2013 L 108, p. 1). |
| --- | --- |

1

By their appeal, Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and the 185 other appellants whose names are listed in Annex I to the present judgment (collectively, ‘VECCO and Others’) seek to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 September 2015, VECCO and Others v Commission (T‐360/13, ‘the judgment under appeal, EU:T:2015:695) by which that court dismissed their action for partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 of 17 April 2013 amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2013 L 108, p. 1).

VECCO and Others

Commission

Legal context

Legal context

| 2 | Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of 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 2006 L 396, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 (OJ 2008 L 353, p. 1) (‘the REACH Regulation’), entitled ‘Aim and scope’, provides:
  ‘The purpose of this Regulation is to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment, including the promotion of alternative methods for assessment of hazards of substances, as well as the free circulation of substances on the internal market while enhancing competitiveness and innovation.’ |
| --- | --- |

2

Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of 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 2006 L 396, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 (OJ 2008 L 353, p. 1) (‘the REACH Regulation’), entitled ‘Aim and scope’, provides:

‘The purpose of this Regulation is to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment, including the promotion of alternative methods for assessment of hazards of substances, as well as the free circulation of substances on the internal market while enhancing competitiveness and innovation.’

| 3 | As set out in Article 55 of the REACH Regulation:
  ‘The aim of this Title is to ensure the good functioning of the internal market while assuring that the risks from substances of very high concern are properly controlled and that these substances are progressively replaced by suitable alternative substances or technologies where these are economically and technically viable. To this end all manufacturers, importers and downstream users applying for authorisations shall analyse the availability of alternatives and consider their risks, and the technical and economic feasibility of substitution.’ |
| --- | --- |

3

As set out in Article 55 of the REACH Regulation:

‘The aim of this Title is to ensure the good functioning of the internal market while assuring that the risks from substances of very high concern are properly controlled and that these substances are progressively replaced by suitable alternative substances or technologies where these are economically and technically viable. To this end all manufacturers, importers and downstream users applying for authorisations shall analyse the availability of alternatives and consider their risks, and the technical and economic feasibility of substitution.’

| 4 | Article 57 of the REACH Regulation sets out the criteria for inclusion of substances in Annex XIV to that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4

Article 57 of the REACH Regulation sets out the criteria for inclusion of substances in Annex XIV to that regulation.

| 5 | Article 58 of the REACH Regulation provides:
  ‘1.   Whenever a decision is taken to include in Annex XIV substances referred to in Article 57, such a decision shall be taken in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 133(4). It shall specify for each substance:





  (a) | the identity of the substance as specified in Section 2 of Annex VI; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5

Article 58 of the REACH Regulation provides:

‘1.   Whenever a decision is taken to include in Annex XIV substances referred to in Article 57, such a decision shall be taken in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 133(4). It shall specify for each substance:

(a)

the identity of the substance as specified in Section 2 of Annex VI;

| (b) | the intrinsic property (properties) of the substance referred to in Article 57; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the intrinsic property (properties) of the substance referred to in Article 57;

...

| (d) | review periods for certain uses, if appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

review periods for certain uses, if appropriate;

| (e) | uses or categories of uses exempted from the authorisation requirement, if any, and conditions for such exemptions, if any. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

uses or categories of uses exempted from the authorisation requirement, if any, and conditions for such exemptions, if any.

2.   Uses or categories of uses may be exempted from the authorisation requirement provided that, on the basis of the existing specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance, the risk is properly controlled. In the establishment of such exemptions, account shall be taken, in particular, of the proportionality of risk to human health and the environment related to the nature of the substance, such as where the risk is modified by the physical form.

...’

| 6 | Articles 60 to 64 of the REACH Regulation concern the granting of authorisations. |
| --- | --- |

6

Articles 60 to 64 of the REACH Regulation concern the granting of authorisations.

Background to the dispute

Background to the dispute

| 7 | It is apparent from paragraphs 1 to 9 of the judgment under appeal that, by means of Regulation No 348/2013, chromium trioxide was included in Annex XIV to the REACH Regulation without any exemptions under Article 58(2) of that regulation being granted for certain uses or categories of uses of that substance. |
| --- | --- |

7

It is apparent from paragraphs 1 to 9 of the judgment under appeal that, by means of Regulation No 348/2013, chromium trioxide was included in Annex XIV to the REACH Regulation without any exemptions under Article 58(2) of that regulation being granted for certain uses or categories of uses of that substance.

The procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal

The procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal

| 8 | On 8 July 2013, VECCO and Others brought an action for the annulment of Regulation No 348/2013. By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action and ordered VECCO and Others to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

8

On 8 July 2013, VECCO and Others brought an action for the annulment of Regulation No 348/2013. By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action and ordered VECCO and Others to pay the costs.

Forms of order sought by the parties before the Court of Justice

Forms of order sought by the parties before the Court of Justice

| 9 | VECCO and Others are asking the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment under appeal and rule on the merits of their action or to refer the case back to the General Court for final judgment. |
| --- | --- |

9

VECCO and Others are asking the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment under appeal and rule on the merits of their action or to refer the case back to the General Court for final judgment.

| 10 | The European Commission contends that the Court should dismiss the appeal and order VECCO and Others to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

10

The European Commission contends that the Court should dismiss the appeal and order VECCO and Others to pay the costs.

| 11 | The French Republic, which was granted leave to intervene in support of the Commission, and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which intervened at first instance in support of the form of order sought by the Commission, request the Court to dismiss the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

11

The French Republic, which was granted leave to intervene in support of the Commission, and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which intervened at first instance in support of the form of order sought by the Commission, request the Court to dismiss the appeal.

The appeal

The appeal

| 12 | VECCO and Others rely on three grounds in support of their appeal. The first and second grounds allege infringement of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation. The third ground alleges an error of assessment. The second and third grounds of appeal are submitted as subsidiary grounds in the event that the first ground of appeal is upheld. |
| --- | --- |

12

VECCO and Others rely on three grounds in support of their appeal. The first and second grounds allege infringement of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation. The third ground alleges an error of assessment. The second and third grounds of appeal are submitted as subsidiary grounds in the event that the first ground of appeal is upheld.

First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation

First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation

Arguments of the parties

Arguments of the parties

| 13 | The first ground of appeal is directed against paragraphs 28 to 53 of the judgment under appeal, in which the General Court held that neither Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1998 L 131, p. 11) nor Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work (sixth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 50) constitutes ‘specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements’ within the meaning of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation. VECCO and Others claim that the General Court misinterpreted that provision. |
| --- | --- |

13

The first ground of appeal is directed against paragraphs 28 to 53 of the judgment under appeal, in which the General Court held that neither Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1998 L 131, p. 11) nor Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work (sixth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 50) constitutes ‘specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements’ within the meaning of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation. VECCO and Others claim that the General Court misinterpreted that provision.

| 14 | The appellants claim that, in paragraphs 40 to 44 and 50 to 53 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law by restricting the scope of the exemption laid down in Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation solely to secondary legislation which relates to particular substances explicitly named. |
| --- | --- |

14

The appellants claim that, in paragraphs 40 to 44 and 50 to 53 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law by restricting the scope of the exemption laid down in Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation solely to secondary legislation which relates to particular substances explicitly named.

| 15 | According to VECCO and Others, the exemption set out in Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation does not apply to substances per se, but rather to their uses or categories of uses. Accordingly, it is not necessary for the legislation in question to specifically name the relevant substances. In that regard, VECCO and Others note that ECHA has acknowledged, in a document entitled ‘Preparation of draft Annex XIV entries for the third recommendation of substances to be included in Annex XIV — General Approach’ that uses falling within the exemption include, inter alia, the hazard classification category of a substance (as a carcinogen, mutagen or reproductive toxicant). Contrary to what was held by the General Court in paragraph 41 of the judgment under appeal, the appellants claim that that interpretation would not be liable seriously to jeopardise the purpose and functioning of the REACH Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

15

According to VECCO and Others, the exemption set out in Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation does not apply to substances per se, but rather to their uses or categories of uses. Accordingly, it is not necessary for the legislation in question to specifically name the relevant substances. In that regard, VECCO and Others note that ECHA has acknowledged, in a document entitled ‘Preparation of draft Annex XIV entries for the third recommendation of substances to be included in Annex XIV — General Approach’ that uses falling within the exemption include, inter alia, the hazard classification category of a substance (as a carcinogen, mutagen or reproductive toxicant). Contrary to what was held by the General Court in paragraph 41 of the judgment under appeal, the appellants claim that that interpretation would not be liable seriously to jeopardise the purpose and functioning of the REACH Regulation.

| 16 | VECCO and Others maintain that the purpose of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation requires a preliminary consideration as to whether existing EU legislation is sufficient to ensure the risks are properly controlled. The three criteria laid down in that provision, requiring ‘specific Community legislation’ imposing ‘minimum requirements’ to ensure ‘the risk is properly controlled’, should therefore be assessed together, in the light of that objective, rather than being assessed in isolation, as done by the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

16

VECCO and Others maintain that the purpose of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation requires a preliminary consideration as to whether existing EU legislation is sufficient to ensure the risks are properly controlled. The three criteria laid down in that provision, requiring ‘specific Community legislation’ imposing ‘minimum requirements’ to ensure ‘the risk is properly controlled’, should therefore be assessed together, in the light of that objective, rather than being assessed in isolation, as done by the General Court.

| 17 | According to VECCO and Others, on a proper construction of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation, the General Court should have, first, examined whether Directives 98/24 and 2004/37 were ‘specific’ to the use of chromium trioxide in the surface treatment and electropolishing industry, secondly, if that had been found to be the case, have determined whether that existing legislation imposed ‘minimum requirements’ and, thirdly, have verified whether those minimum requirements were sufficient to properly control the risks involved. |
| --- | --- |

17

According to VECCO and Others, on a proper construction of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation, the General Court should have, first, examined whether Directives 98/24 and 2004/37 were ‘specific’ to the use of chromium trioxide in the surface treatment and electropolishing industry, secondly, if that had been found to be the case, have determined whether that existing legislation imposed ‘minimum requirements’ and, thirdly, have verified whether those minimum requirements were sufficient to properly control the risks involved.

| 18 | As regards the first criterion under Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation, relating to the existence of ‘specific’ EU legislation, VECCO and Others consider it satisfied, given that the uses or categories of uses for which an exemption has been requested, namely, surface coating and electropolishing processes using chromium trioxide, fall within the uses contemplated by Directive 98/24 and, on account of that substance being classified as a carcinogen, by Directive 2004/37. |
| --- | --- |

18

As regards the first criterion under Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation, relating to the existence of ‘specific’ EU legislation, VECCO and Others consider it satisfied, given that the uses or categories of uses for which an exemption has been requested, namely, surface coating and electropolishing processes using chromium trioxide, fall within the uses contemplated by Directive 98/24 and, on account of that substance being classified as a carcinogen, by Directive 2004/37.

| 19 | As regards the second criterion of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation, VECCO and Others consider that the General Court appropriately outlined, in paragraphs 37 and 43 of the judgment under appeal, the ‘minimum requirements’ laid down by Directives 98/24 and 2004/37. However, they maintain that that court failed to assess in concreto whether those requirements ensured proper control of the risk to workers in the surface treatment and electropolishing industry. |
| --- | --- |

19

As regards the second criterion of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation, VECCO and Others consider that the General Court appropriately outlined, in paragraphs 37 and 43 of the judgment under appeal, the ‘minimum requirements’ laid down by Directives 98/24 and 2004/37. However, they maintain that that court failed to assess in concreto whether those requirements ensured proper control of the risk to workers in the surface treatment and electropolishing industry.

in concreto

| 20 | The appellants claim that the General Court was wrong to find, in paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal, that Directive 98/24 lays down only a general framework of the duties imposed on employers who expose their employees to chemical risks. They assert that the General Court also held, in paragraph 44 of the judgment under appeal, that since Directive 98/24 does not lay down a maximum occupational exposure limit for the substance at issue, that directive cannot be considered to impose ‘minimum requirements’, within the meaning of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

20

The appellants claim that the General Court was wrong to find, in paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal, that Directive 98/24 lays down only a general framework of the duties imposed on employers who expose their employees to chemical risks. They assert that the General Court also held, in paragraph 44 of the judgment under appeal, that since Directive 98/24 does not lay down a maximum occupational exposure limit for the substance at issue, that directive cannot be considered to impose ‘minimum requirements’, within the meaning of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation.

| 21 | VECCO and Others maintain that the setting of maximum occupational exposure limits is neither the best nor the only method of managing chemical risks. The lack of such maximum limits for chromium trioxide is not sufficient for it to be concluded that those directives do not impose ‘minimum requirements’, within the meaning of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

21

VECCO and Others maintain that the setting of maximum occupational exposure limits is neither the best nor the only method of managing chemical risks. The lack of such maximum limits for chromium trioxide is not sufficient for it to be concluded that those directives do not impose ‘minimum requirements’, within the meaning of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation.

| 22 | As regards the criterion concerning the proper control of risks, VECCO and Others take issue with paragraph 64 of the judgment under appeal, by which the General Court held that it was impossible to assess whether that criterion had been satisfied, because of the lack of specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements. The appellants claim that that ‘superficial’ interpretation misconstrued, in law, the overall objective of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation and failed to have regard, in fact, to the evidence adduced as a whole, which sought to demonstrate that the risk to workers in the surface treatment and electropolishing industry stemming from the use of chromium trioxide is properly controlled by existing EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

22

As regards the criterion concerning the proper control of risks, VECCO and Others take issue with paragraph 64 of the judgment under appeal, by which the General Court held that it was impossible to assess whether that criterion had been satisfied, because of the lack of specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements. The appellants claim that that ‘superficial’ interpretation misconstrued, in law, the overall objective of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation and failed to have regard, in fact, to the evidence adduced as a whole, which sought to demonstrate that the risk to workers in the surface treatment and electropolishing industry stemming from the use of chromium trioxide is properly controlled by existing EU legislation.

| 23 | The Commission disputes the interpretation proposed by VECCO and Others to the effect that Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation applies to uses and not to substances. It agrees with the reasoning of the General Court in finding that it was not necessary to examine the uses covered by Directives 98/24 and 2004/37, since those directives are not specific to chromium trioxide. |
| --- | --- |

23

The Commission disputes the interpretation proposed by VECCO and Others to the effect that Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation applies to uses and not to substances. It agrees with the reasoning of the General Court in finding that it was not necessary to examine the uses covered by Directives 98/24 and 2004/37, since those directives are not specific to chromium trioxide.

| 24 | ECHA supports the arguments of the Commission. It maintains that the legislature has not provided for an automatic exemption from authorisation for all uses covered by Directives 98/24 and 2004/37. |
| --- | --- |

24

ECHA supports the arguments of the Commission. It maintains that the legislature has not provided for an automatic exemption from authorisation for all uses covered by Directives 98/24 and 2004/37.

| 25 | The French Republic takes the same point of view and considers that Directives 98/24 and 2004/37 are not specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance within the meaning of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

25

The French Republic takes the same point of view and considers that Directives 98/24 and 2004/37 are not specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance within the meaning of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation.

Findings of the Court

Findings of the Court

| 26 | In order to address the first ground of appeal, it is necessary to bear in mind the context in which the exemption laid down in Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation applies. |
| --- | --- |

26

In order to address the first ground of appeal, it is necessary to bear in mind the context in which the exemption laid down in Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation applies.

| 27 | In that regard, Article 1(1) of the REACH Regulation states that the purpose of the regulation is to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment, including the promotion of alternative methods for assessment of hazards of substances, as well as the free circulation of substances on the internal market while enhancing competitiveness and innovation. To that end, that regulation introduces an integrated system for monitoring chemical substances, including registration, evaluation and authorisation, together with possible restrictions on their use (see, inter alia, judgment of 15 March 2017, Polynt v ECHA, C‐323/15 P, EU:C:2017:207, paragraph 20). |
| --- | --- |

27

In that regard, Article 1(1) of the REACH Regulation states that the purpose of the regulation is to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment, including the promotion of alternative methods for assessment of hazards of substances, as well as the free circulation of substances on the internal market while enhancing competitiveness and innovation. To that end, that regulation introduces an integrated system for monitoring chemical substances, including registration, evaluation and authorisation, together with possible restrictions on their use (see, inter alia, judgment of 15 March 2017, Polynt v ECHA, C‐323/15 P, EU:C:2017:207, paragraph 20).

| 28 | As made clear, inter alia, in recitals 69 and 70 of the REACH Regulation, that regulation makes substances ‘of very high concern’ subject to careful attention. Those substances are thus subject to the authorisation scheme laid down in Title VII of that regulation. Article 55 of that regulation states that the objective of the authorisation scheme is ‘to ensure the good functioning of the internal market while assuring that the risks from substances of very high concern are properly controlled and that these substances are progressively replaced by suitable alternative substances or technologies where these are economically and technically viable’ (see, inter alia, judgment of 15 March 2017, Polynt v ECHA, C‐323/15 P, EU:C:2017:207, paragraph 21). |
| --- | --- |

28

As made clear, inter alia, in recitals 69 and 70 of the REACH Regulation, that regulation makes substances ‘of very high concern’ subject to careful attention. Those substances are thus subject to the authorisation scheme laid down in Title VII of that regulation. Article 55 of that regulation states that the objective of the authorisation scheme is ‘to ensure the good functioning of the internal market while assuring that the risks from substances of very high concern are properly controlled and that these substances are progressively replaced by suitable alternative substances or technologies where these are economically and technically viable’ (see, inter alia, judgment of 15 March 2017, Polynt v ECHA, C‐323/15 P, EU:C:2017:207, paragraph 21).

| 29 | The first stage under that authorisation scheme is the procedure for identifying substances of very high concern on the basis of the criteria set out in Article 57 of the REACH Regulation. The second stage is the inclusion of those substances on the list of substances subject to authorisation set out in Annex XIV to that regulation, and the third and final stage concerns the procedure that leads, if appropriate, to the authorisation of a substance of very high concern (see, inter alia, judgment of 15 March 2017, Polynt v ECHA, C‐323/15 P, EU:C:2017:207, paragraph 22). |
| --- | --- |

29

The first stage under that authorisation scheme is the procedure for identifying substances of very high concern on the basis of the criteria set out in Article 57 of the REACH Regulation. The second stage is the inclusion of those substances on the list of substances subject to authorisation set out in Annex XIV to that regulation, and the third and final stage concerns the procedure that leads, if appropriate, to the authorisation of a substance of very high concern (see, inter alia, judgment of 15 March 2017, Polynt v ECHA, C‐323/15 P, EU:C:2017:207, paragraph 22).

| 30 | In order to ensure coherence between the authorisation scheme laid down in Title VII of the REACH Regulation and other EU legal provisions aimed at protecting human health and the environment from risks arising from the use of chemical substances, Article 58(2) of that regulation allows for the exemption of certain uses or categories of uses from the authorisation requirement ‘provided that, on the basis of the existing specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance, the risk is properly controlled’. |
| --- | --- |

30

In order to ensure coherence between the authorisation scheme laid down in Title VII of the REACH Regulation and other EU legal provisions aimed at protecting human health and the environment from risks arising from the use of chemical substances, Article 58(2) of that regulation allows for the exemption of certain uses or categories of uses from the authorisation requirement ‘provided that, on the basis of the existing specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance, the risk is properly controlled’.

| 31 | It is clear from that provision that certain uses or categories of uses of a substance of very high concern may be exempted from the authorisation requirement if two conditions are satisfied. Those conditions require, first, that there be ‘existing specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance’ and, secondly, that, on the basis of that legislation, ‘the risk [be] properly controlled’. It is also apparent from the clear wording of that provision that those conditions are cumulative, which means that, as the General Court essentially held in paragraphs 32 and 64 of the judgment under appeal, it is sufficient that only one of those conditions is not satisfied for the exemption to have to be refused. |
| --- | --- |

31

It is clear from that provision that certain uses or categories of uses of a substance of very high concern may be exempted from the authorisation requirement if two conditions are satisfied. Those conditions require, first, that there be ‘existing specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance’ and, secondly, that, on the basis of that legislation, ‘the risk [be] properly controlled’. It is also apparent from the clear wording of that provision that those conditions are cumulative, which means that, as the General Court essentially held in paragraphs 32 and 64 of the judgment under appeal, it is sufficient that only one of those conditions is not satisfied for the exemption to have to be refused.

| 32 | Moreover, a restrictive interpretation of that provision is necessary precisely because it constitutes an exception. |
| --- | --- |

32

Moreover, a restrictive interpretation of that provision is necessary precisely because it constitutes an exception.

| 33 | As regards the question whether Directives 98/24 and 2004/37 satisfy the first of those conditions, it is necessary to determine whether those directives can be regarded as specific legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance. |
| --- | --- |

33

As regards the question whether Directives 98/24 and 2004/37 satisfy the first of those conditions, it is necessary to determine whether those directives can be regarded as specific legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance.

| 34 | In accordance with settled case-law, the meaning and scope of the term ‘specific legislation’, for which the REACH Regulation provides no definition, must be determined by considering its usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which it occurs and the purposes of the rules of which it is part (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 June 2015, Hotel Sava Rogaška, C‐207/14, EU:C:2015:414, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited). |
| --- | --- |

34

In accordance with settled case-law, the meaning and scope of the term ‘specific legislation’, for which the REACH Regulation provides no definition, must be determined by considering its usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which it occurs and the purposes of the rules of which it is part (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 June 2015, Hotel Sava Rogaška, C‐207/14, EU:C:2015:414, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).

| 35 | In everyday language, the usual meaning of the adjective ‘specific’ denotes that which is distinctive of a particular subset and distinguishes it from other subsets, thus it can be regarded as the opposite of ‘general’. In accordance with its usual meaning, the term ‘specific legislation’ used in Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation must be interpreted as referring, at the very least, to any directive or regulation laying down rules particular to the substance concerned. That term is to be understood as contrasting with legislation governing either a group of substances or categories of uses, which are defined generally and abstractly. |
| --- | --- |

35

In everyday language, the usual meaning of the adjective ‘specific’ denotes that which is distinctive of a particular subset and distinguishes it from other subsets, thus it can be regarded as the opposite of ‘general’. In accordance with its usual meaning, the term ‘specific legislation’ used in Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation must be interpreted as referring, at the very least, to any directive or regulation laying down rules particular to the substance concerned. That term is to be understood as contrasting with legislation governing either a group of substances or categories of uses, which are defined generally and abstractly.

| 36 | VECCO and Others nonetheless maintain that the exemption laid down in Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation applies to uses or categories of uses and not to substances. Consequently, they claim that in order to determine whether that exemption is applicable, rather than assessing whether the substance in question is expressly mentioned in the legislation at issue, it is necessary to assess whether that legislation makes it possible, in practice, properly to control the risks associated with the uses or categories of uses considered for that substance. Thus the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by holding that Directives 98/24 and 2004/37 do not constitute specific legislation imposing minimum requirements on the ground that those directives do not expressly mention chromium trioxide. |
| --- | --- |

36

VECCO and Others nonetheless maintain that the exemption laid down in Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation applies to uses or categories of uses and not to substances. Consequently, they claim that in order to determine whether that exemption is applicable, rather than assessing whether the substance in question is expressly mentioned in the legislation at issue, it is necessary to assess whether that legislation makes it possible, in practice, properly to control the risks associated with the uses or categories of uses considered for that substance. Thus the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by holding that Directives 98/24 and 2004/37 do not constitute specific legislation imposing minimum requirements on the ground that those directives do not expressly mention chromium trioxide.

| 37 | In that regard, although the first sentence of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation refers not to the notion of ‘substance’ but only to the notion of ‘uses or categories of uses’, the fact remains that the exemption mechanism implies an inextricable link between a substance and its uses or categories of uses. |
| --- | --- |

37

In that regard, although the first sentence of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation refers not to the notion of ‘substance’ but only to the notion of ‘uses or categories of uses’, the fact remains that the exemption mechanism implies an inextricable link between a substance and its uses or categories of uses.

| 38 | The objective of the REACH Regulation is to regulate substances, as is apparent from its title and its general scheme. The authorisation scheme referred to in Title VII more specifically covers substances which, on account of their intrinsic properties, are considered to be of very high concern and, accordingly, must ultimately be replaced. |
| --- | --- |

38

The objective of the REACH Regulation is to regulate substances, as is apparent from its title and its general scheme. The authorisation scheme referred to in Title VII more specifically covers substances which, on account of their intrinsic properties, are considered to be of very high concern and, accordingly, must ultimately be replaced.

| 39 | As is apparent from Article 55 of that regulation, those substances may be placed on the market only on the basis of an authorisation which ensures that the risks posed by their use are properly controlled. It is for that reason that the grant of an authorisation under Article 60 of the REACH Regulation is preceded by a risk assessment carried out under the conditions laid down in Article 64 of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

39

As is apparent from Article 55 of that regulation, those substances may be placed on the market only on the basis of an authorisation which ensures that the risks posed by their use are properly controlled. It is for that reason that the grant of an authorisation under Article 60 of the REACH Regulation is preceded by a risk assessment carried out under the conditions laid down in Article 64 of that regulation.

| 40 | Furthermore, the decision to include a substance in Annex XIV of the REACH Regulation must, in accordance with Article 58(1)(e) of that regulation, state in particular the uses or categories of uses exempted from the authorisation requirement, if any, and the conditions for such exemptions, if any. |
| --- | --- |

40

Furthermore, the decision to include a substance in Annex XIV of the REACH Regulation must, in accordance with Article 58(1)(e) of that regulation, state in particular the uses or categories of uses exempted from the authorisation requirement, if any, and the conditions for such exemptions, if any.

| 41 | Moreover, as the General Court correctly stated, in essence, in paragraphs 41 and 44 of the judgment under appeal, the interpretation of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation put forward by VECCO and Others would mean, in particular, that any substance in carcinogenicity category 1 or 2 would be exempted from the obligation to obtain authorisation for occupational uses, on the ground that Directive 2004/37 governs such use for all carcinogenic substances. Such an interpretation is incompatible with both the wording and purpose of the authorisation scheme under Title VII of the REACH Regulation with regard to substances of very high concern, such as substances in carcinogenicity category 1 or 2. |
| --- | --- |

41

Moreover, as the General Court correctly stated, in essence, in paragraphs 41 and 44 of the judgment under appeal, the interpretation of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation put forward by VECCO and Others would mean, in particular, that any substance in carcinogenicity category 1 or 2 would be exempted from the obligation to obtain authorisation for occupational uses, on the ground that Directive 2004/37 governs such use for all carcinogenic substances. Such an interpretation is incompatible with both the wording and purpose of the authorisation scheme under Title VII of the REACH Regulation with regard to substances of very high concern, such as substances in carcinogenicity category 1 or 2.

| 42 | Therefore, in the present case, having correctly held that Directives 98/24 and 2004/37 contain no provisions specific to chromium trioxide imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance, the General Court did not err in law in finding, on the grounds set out in paragraphs 37 to 45 of the judgment under appeal, that those directives do not constitute ‘specific legislation’ within the meaning of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation. Consequently, the General Court was fully entitled to conclude, at paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal, that the first of the two conditions laid down by that provision was not satisfied and, accordingly, that Court was justified in rejecting, in paragraph 66 of the judgment under appeal, the plea alleging infringement of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

42

Therefore, in the present case, having correctly held that Directives 98/24 and 2004/37 contain no provisions specific to chromium trioxide imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance, the General Court did not err in law in finding, on the grounds set out in paragraphs 37 to 45 of the judgment under appeal, that those directives do not constitute ‘specific legislation’ within the meaning of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation. Consequently, the General Court was fully entitled to conclude, at paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal, that the first of the two conditions laid down by that provision was not satisfied and, accordingly, that Court was justified in rejecting, in paragraph 66 of the judgment under appeal, the plea alleging infringement of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation.

| 43 | It follows that the first ground of appeal must, for that reason alone, be rejected as unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

43

It follows that the first ground of appeal must, for that reason alone, be rejected as unfounded.

| 44 | The second and third grounds of appeal were submitted as subsidiary grounds in the event that the first ground of appeal was upheld. Since the first ground has been rejected, the second and third grounds of appeal must be dismissed as ineffective. |
| --- | --- |

44

The second and third grounds of appeal were submitted as subsidiary grounds in the event that the first ground of appeal was upheld. Since the first ground has been rejected, the second and third grounds of appeal must be dismissed as ineffective.

Costs

Costs

| 45 | Under Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is unfounded the Court is to make a decision as to costs. Under Article 138(1) of those Rules of Procedure, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. |
| --- | --- |

45

Under Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is unfounded the Court is to make a decision as to costs. Under Article 138(1) of those Rules of Procedure, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

| 46 | Article 140(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which applies to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, provides that the Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

46

Article 140(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which applies to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, provides that the Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs.

| 47 | Under Article 184(4) of those Rules of Procedure, the Court of Justice may decide that an intervener at first instance who has taken part in the written or oral part of the proceedings before the Court is to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

47

Under Article 184(4) of those Rules of Procedure, the Court of Justice may decide that an intervener at first instance who has taken part in the written or oral part of the proceedings before the Court is to bear his own costs.

| 48 | Since the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against VECCO and Others and the latter have been unsuccessful, VECCO and Others must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

48

Since the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against VECCO and Others and the latter have been unsuccessful, VECCO and Others must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

| 49 | The French Republic, as intervener in the appeal, shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

49

The French Republic, as intervener in the appeal, shall bear its own costs.

| 50 | ECHA, as an intervener at first instance, shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

50

ECHA, as an intervener at first instance, shall bear its own costs.

| | On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby: |
| --- | --- |

On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby:

| | 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

Dismisses the appeal;

| | 2. | Orders Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and the other applicants whose names are listed in Annex I to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

2.

Orders Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and the other applicants whose names are listed in Annex I to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

Orders Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and the other applicants whose names are listed in Annex I to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| | 3. | Orders the French Republic and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

3.

Orders the French Republic and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

Orders the French Republic and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

| | Regan


  Fernlund


  Rodin


  Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 July 2017.


  A. Calot Escobar
  Registrar


  E. Regan
  President of the Sixth Chamber |
| --- | --- |

Regan

Fernlund

Rodin

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 July 2017.

A. Calot Escobar

Registrar

E. Regan

President of the Sixth Chamber

ANNEX I

ANNEX I

List of appellants

List of appellants

Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO), established in Memmingen (Germany),

Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO)

Adolf Krämer GmbH & Co. KG, established in Ulm (Germany),

Adolf Krämer GmbH & Co. KG

AgO Argentum GmbH Oberflächenveredelung, established in Nuremberg (Germany),

AgO Argentum GmbH Oberflächenveredelung

Alfred Kruse GmbH Metallveredelungen, established in Langenfeld (Germany),

Alfred Kruse GmbH Metallveredelungen

AL-Oberflächenveredelungsgesellschaft mbH, established in Wuppertal (Germany),

AL-Oberflächenveredelungsgesellschaft mbH

Anke GmbH & Co. KG Oberflächentechnik, established in Essen (Germany),

Anke GmbH & Co. KG Oberflächentechnik

ATC Armoloy Technology Coatings GmbH & Co. KG, established in Mosbach (Germany),

ATC Armoloy Technology Coatings GmbH & Co. KG

August Schröder GmbH & Co. KG Oberflächenveredelung, established in Hemer (Germany),

August Schröder GmbH & Co. KG Oberflächenveredelung

August Sure KG, established in Lüdenscheid (Germany),

August Sure KG

Baaske Oberflächenveredelung GmbH, established in Wuppertal,

Baaske Oberflächenveredelung GmbH

Hartchrom Beck GmbH, established in Güglingen (Germany),

Hartchrom Beck GmbH

Bredt GmbH, established in Meschede (Germany),

Bredt GmbH

Breidert Galvanic GmbH, established in Darmstadt (Germany),

Breidert Galvanic GmbH

Chrom-Müller Metallveredelung GmbH, established in Oberndorf am Neckar (Germany),

Chrom-Müller Metallveredelung GmbH

Chrom-Schmitt GmbH & Co. KG, established in Baden-Baden (Germany),

Chrom-Schmitt GmbH & Co. KG

C. Hübner GmbH, established in Marktoberdorf (Germany),

C. Hübner GmbH

C.W. Albert GmbH & Co. KG, established in Hemer-Bredenbruch (Germany),

C.W. Albert GmbH & Co. KG

Detlef Bingen GmbH, established in Langenfeld,

Detlef Bingen GmbH

Dittes Oberflächentechnik GmbH, established in Keltern (Germany),

Dittes Oberflächentechnik GmbH

Duralloy Süd GmbH, established in Villingen-Schwenningen (Germany),

Duralloy Süd GmbH

Durochrom-Bogatzki, established in Oberndorf am Neckar,

Durochrom-Bogatzki

Metallveredelung Emil Weiß GmbH & Co. KG, established in Mitwitz (Germany),

Metallveredelung Emil Weiß GmbH & Co. KG

Ewald Siodla Metallveredelungsgesellschaft mbH, established in Witten (Germany),

Ewald Siodla Metallveredelungsgesellschaft mbH

Flügel CSS GmbH & Co. KG, established in Solingen (Germany),

Flügel CSS GmbH & Co. KG

Fritz Zehnle Galvanische Anstalt, Inh. Gerd Joos eK, established in Triberg (Germany),

Fritz Zehnle Galvanische Anstalt, Inh. Gerd Joos eK

Galvanoform Gesellschaft für Galvanoplastik mbH, established in Lahr (Germany),

Galvanoform Gesellschaft für Galvanoplastik mbH

Galvano Herbert Geske eK, established in Solingen,

Galvano Herbert Geske eK

Galvanotechnik Friedrich Holst GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany),

Galvanotechnik Friedrich Holst GmbH

Galvano Weis, Weis GmbH & Co., Galvanische Werkstätte KG, established in Emmering (Germany),

Galvano Weis, Weis GmbH & Co., Galvanische Werkstätte KG

gebr. böge Metallveredelungs GmbH, established in Hamburg,

gebr. böge Metallveredelungs GmbH

Hans Giesbert GmbH & Co. KG, established in Mömbris (Germany),

Hans Giesbert GmbH & Co. KG

Groz-Beckert KG, established in Albstadt (Germany),

Groz-Beckert KG

GTW GmbH, established in Werl (Germany),

GTW GmbH

GWC Coating GmbH, established in Villingen-Schwenningen,

GWC Coating GmbH

Hartchrom Beuthel GmbH, established in Schwelm (Germany),

Hartchrom Beuthel GmbH

Hartchrom Erb GmbH, established in Weiterstadt (Germany),

Hartchrom Erb GmbH

Hartchrom GmbH, established in Karlsruhe (Germany),

Hartchrom GmbH

Hartchrom GmbH Werner Kreuz, established in Blumberg (Germany),

Hartchrom GmbH Werner Kreuz

Hartchrom Schoch GmbH, established in Sternenfels (Germany),

Hartchrom Schoch GmbH

Hartchrom Teikuro Automotive GmbH, established in Sternenfels,

Hartchrom Teikuro Automotive GmbH

Heine Optotechnik GmbH & Co. KG, established in Herrsching (Germany),

Heine Optotechnik GmbH & Co. KG

Heinrich Schnarr GmbH Metallveredlungswerk, established in Mainaschaff (Germany),

Heinrich Schnarr GmbH Metallveredlungswerk

Heinrich Schulte Söhne GmbH & Co. KG, established in Arnsberg (Germany),

Heinrich Schulte Söhne GmbH & Co. KG

Heinz Daurer und Söhne GmbH & Co. KG Metall-Veredelung-Lampertheim, established in Lampertheim (Germany),

Heinz Daurer und Söhne GmbH & Co. KG Metall-Veredelung-Lampertheim

Helmut Gossmann Metallveredelungs-GmbH, established in Goldbach (Germany),

Helmut Gossmann Metallveredelungs-GmbH

Henry Gevekoth GmbH, established in Hamburg,

Henry Gevekoth GmbH

Heyer GmbH Oberflächentechnik, established in Lübeck (Germany),

Heyer GmbH Oberflächentechnik

HFJ Galvano Kiel GmbH, established in Kiel (Germany),

HFJ Galvano Kiel GmbH

Hueck Engraving GmbH & Co. KG, established in Viersen (Germany),

Hueck Engraving GmbH & Co. KG

Imhof Hartchrom GmbH, established in Karlstadt (Germany),

Imhof Hartchrom GmbH

Johannes Jander GmbH & Co. KG Metalloberflächenveredelung, established in Iserlohn (Germany),

Johannes Jander GmbH & Co. KG Metalloberflächenveredelung

Johann Maffei GmbH & Co. KG, established in Iserlohn-Simmern (Germany),

Johann Maffei GmbH & Co. KG

Kesseböhmer Beschlagsysteme GmbH & Co. KG, established in Bad Essen (Germany),

Kesseböhmer Beschlagsysteme GmbH & Co. KG

Knipex-Werk C. Gustav Putsch KG, established in Wuppertal,

Knipex-Werk C. Gustav Putsch KG

Kreft & Röhrig GmbH, established in Troisdorf-Friedrich-Wilhelms Hütte (Germany),

Kreft & Röhrig GmbH

Kriebel Metallveredelung GmbH, established in Kirschfurt (Germany),

Kriebel Metallveredelung GmbH

LKS Kronenberger GmbH Metallveredlungswerk, established in Seligenstadt (Germany),

LKS Kronenberger GmbH Metallveredlungswerk

Kunststofftechnik Bernt GmbH, established in Kaufbeuren (Germany),

Kunststofftechnik Bernt GmbH

L B — Oberflächentechnik GmbH, established in Wuppertal,

L B — Oberflächentechnik GmbH

Linder Metallveredelungsgesellschaft mbH, established in Albstadt (Germany),

Linder Metallveredelungsgesellschaft mbH

Metallisierwerk Peter Schreiber GmbH, established in Düsseldorf (Germany),

Metallisierwerk Peter Schreiber GmbH

Montanhydraulik GmbH, established in Holzwickede (Germany),

Montanhydraulik GmbH

Morex SpA, established in Crespano del Grappa (Italy),

Morex SpA

Motoren-Sauer Instandsetzungs-GmbH, established in Hösbach (Germany),

Motoren-Sauer Instandsetzungs-GmbH

MSC/Copperflow Ltd, established in Bolton, Greater Manchester (United Kingdom),

MSC/Copperflow Ltd

Neumeister Hydraulik GmbH, established in Neuenstadt am Kocher (Germany),

Neumeister Hydraulik GmbH

Nießer Metallveredelung GmbH, established in Röthenbach an der Pegnitz (Germany),

Nießer Metallveredelung GmbH

Norddeutsche Hartchrom GmbH & Co. KG, established in Ganderkesee (Germany),

Norddeutsche Hartchrom GmbH & Co. KG

Oberflächenzentrum Elz GmbH, established in Limburg (Germany),

Oberflächenzentrum Elz GmbH

OK Oberflächenveredelung GmbH & Co. KG, established in Sundern (Germany),

OK Oberflächenveredelung GmbH & Co. KG

OTH Oberflächentechnik Hagen GmbH & Co. KG, established in Hagen (Germany),

OTH Oberflächentechnik Hagen GmbH & Co. KG

OT Oberflächentechnik GmbH & Co. KG, established in Schwerin (Germany),

OT Oberflächentechnik GmbH & Co. KG

Präzisionsgalvanik GmbH Wolfen, established in Bitterfeld-Wolfen (Germany),

Präzisionsgalvanik GmbH Wolfen

Rahrbach GmbH, established in Heiligenhaus (Germany),

Rahrbach GmbH

Rudolf Clauss GmbH & Co. KG Metallveredlung, established in Mülheim an der Ruhr (Germany),

Rudolf Clauss GmbH & Co. KG Metallveredlung

Rudolf Jatzke Galvanik-Hartchrom Günter Holthöfer GmbH & Co. KG, established in Bielefeld (Germany),

Rudolf Jatzke Galvanik-Hartchrom Günter Holthöfer GmbH & Co. KG

Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG, established in Herzogenaurach (Germany),

Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG

Scherer GmbH, established in Haslach im Kinzigtal (Germany),

Scherer GmbH

Schmitz Hydraulikzylinder GmbH, established in Büttelborn (Germany),

Schmitz Hydraulikzylinder GmbH

Schnarr Metallveredlung GmbH, established in Waiblingen (Germany),

Schnarr Metallveredlung GmbH

Schornberg Galvanik GmbH, established in Lippstadt (Germany),

Schornberg Galvanik GmbH

Robert Schrubstock GmbH & Co. KG, established in Velbert (Germany),

Robert Schrubstock GmbH & Co. KG

Schulte Hartchrom GmbH, established in Arnsberg,

Schulte Hartchrom GmbH

Schwing GmbH, established in Sankt Stefan im Lavanttal (Austria),

Schwing GmbH

Silit-Werke GmbH & Co. KG, established in Riedlingen (Germany),

Silit-Werke GmbH & Co. KG

Steinbach & Vollmann GmbH & Co. KG, established in Heiligenhaus,

Steinbach & Vollmann GmbH & Co. KG

Strötzel Oberflächentechnik GmbH & Co. KG, established in Hildesheim (Germany),

Strötzel Oberflächentechnik GmbH & Co. KG

Süss Oberflächentechnik GmbH, established in Wetzlar (Germany),

Süss Oberflächentechnik GmbH

Thoma Metallveredelung GmbH, established in Heimertingen (Germany),

Thoma Metallveredelung GmbH

Viemetall Viersener Metallveredlung Pottel GmbH & Co. KG, established in Viersen (Germany),

Viemetall Viersener Metallveredlung Pottel GmbH & Co. KG

Walzen-Service-Center GmbH, established in Oberhausen (Germany),

Walzen-Service-Center GmbH

Wavec GmbH, established in Eisenhüttenstadt (Germany),

Wavec GmbH

Wilhelm Bauer GmbH & Co. KG, established in Hanovre (Germany),

Wilhelm Bauer GmbH & Co. KG

Willy Remscheid Galvanische Anstalt GmbH, established in Solingen,

Willy Remscheid Galvanische Anstalt GmbH

Willy Remscheid Kunststofftechnik GmbH, established in Velbert,

Willy Remscheid Kunststofftechnik GmbH

Wiotec, Inhaber Udo Wilmes eK, established in Ense (Germany),

Wiotec, Inhaber Udo Wilmes eK

Wissing Hartchrom GmbH, established in Lohmar (Germany),

Wissing Hartchrom GmbH

alfi GmbH Isoliergefäße, Metall- und Haushaltswaren, established in Wertheim (Germany),

alfi GmbH Isoliergefäße, Metall- und Haushaltswaren

BIA Kunststoff- und Galvanotechnik GmbH & Co. KG, established in Solingen,

BIA Kunststoff- und Galvanotechnik GmbH & Co. KG

Siegfried Boner eK, established in Villingen-Schwenningen,

Siegfried Boner eK

Bruchmühlbacher Galvanotechnik (BG) GmbH, established in Bruchmühlbach-Miesau (Germany),

Bruchmühlbacher Galvanotechnik (BG) GmbH

C + C Krug GmbH, established in Velbert,

C + C Krug GmbH

Collini GmbH, established in Aperg (Germany),

Collini GmbH

Collini Gesellschaft mbH, established in Hohenems (Austria),

Collini Gesellschaft mbH

Collini GmbH, established in Marchtrenk (Austria),

Collini GmbH

ColliniWien GmbH, established in Vienna (Austria),

ColliniWien GmbH

Federal-Mogul TP Europe GmbH & Co KG, established in Burscheid (Germany),

Federal-Mogul TP Europe GmbH & Co KG

Fischer GmbH & Co. surface technologies KG, established in Katzenelnbogen (Germany),

Fischer GmbH & Co. surface technologies KG

Friederici Oberflächenveredlung GmbH, established in Iserlohn,

Friederici Oberflächenveredlung GmbH

Galvano Wittenstein GmbH, established in Solingen,

Galvano Wittenstein GmbH

Gedore-Werkzeugfabrik GmbH & Co. KG, established in Remscheid (Germany),

Gedore-Werkzeugfabrik GmbH & Co. KG

Gerhardi Kunststofftechnik GmbH, established in Lüdenscheid,

Gerhardi Kunststofftechnik GmbH

Gosma — Werkzeugfabrik und Metallveredelung Weber GmbH, established in Gosheim (Germany),

Gosma — Werkzeugfabrik und Metallveredelung Weber GmbH

Hartchrom-Meuter Ernst Meuter GmbH & Co. KG, established in Solingen,

Hartchrom-Meuter Ernst Meuter GmbH & Co. KG

Hartchrom Spezialbeschichtung Winter GmbH, established in Treuen (Germany),

Hartchrom Spezialbeschichtung Winter GmbH

Hasler AG, Aluminiumveredlung, established in Turgi (Switzerland),

Hasler AG, Aluminiumveredlung

Hartchrom Haslinger Oberflächentechnik GmbH, established in Linz (Austria),

Hartchrom Haslinger Oberflächentechnik GmbH

Hentschel Harteloxal GmbH & Co. KG, established in Schorndorf (Germany),

Hentschel Harteloxal GmbH & Co. KG

Kammin Metallveredelung KG, established in Friesenheim (Germany),

Kammin Metallveredelung KG

Karl-Heinz Bauer GmbH Galvanische Anstalt, established in Ispringen (Germany),

Karl-Heinz Bauer GmbH Galvanische Anstalt

Maschinenfabrik KBA-Mödling AG, established in Maria Enzersdorf (Austria),

Maschinenfabrik KBA-Mödling AG

Albert Kißling Galvanische Werke GmbH, established in Neusäß (Germany),

Albert Kißling Galvanische Werke GmbH

KME Germany GmbH & Co. KG, established in Osnabrück (Germany),

KME Germany GmbH & Co. KG

Lahner KG, established in Brunn am Gebirge (Austria),

Lahner KG

Liebherr-Aerospace Lindenberg GmbH, established in Lindenberg (Germany),

Liebherr-Aerospace Lindenberg GmbH

MTU Aero Engines AG, established in Munich (Germany),

MTU Aero Engines AG

MTU Maintenance Hannover GmbH, established in Langenhagen (Germany),

MTU Maintenance Hannover GmbH

Münze Österreich AG, established in Vienna,

Münze Österreich AG

Nehlsen-BWB Flugzeug-Galvanik Dresden GmbH & Co. KG, established in Dresden (Germany),

Nehlsen-BWB Flugzeug-Galvanik Dresden GmbH & Co. KG

Orbis Will GmbH + Co. KG, established in Ahaus (Germany),

Orbis Will GmbH + Co. KG

Riag Oberflächentechnik AG, established in Wängi (Switzerland),

Riag Oberflächentechnik AG

Franz Rieger Metallveredlung, established in Steinheim am Albuch (Germany),

Franz Rieger Metallveredlung

Saxonia Galvanik GmbH, established in Halsbrücke (Germany),

Saxonia Galvanik GmbH

Schweizer Galvanotechnic GmbH & Co. KG, established in Heilbronn (Germany),

Schweizer Galvanotechnic GmbH & Co. KG

G. Schwepper Beschlag GmbH & Co, established in Heiligenhaus,

G. Schwepper Beschlag GmbH & Co

R. Spitzke Oberflächen- und Galvanotechnik GmbH & Co. KG, established in Barsbüttel (Germany),

R. Spitzke Oberflächen- und Galvanotechnik GmbH & Co. KG

Stahl Judenburg GmbH, established in Judenburg (Austria),

Stahl Judenburg GmbH

VTK Veredelungstechnik Krieglach GmbH, established in Krieglach (Austria),

VTK Veredelungstechnik Krieglach GmbH

STI Surface Technologies International Holding AG, established in Steinach (Switzerland),

STI Surface Technologies International Holding AG

Witech GmbH, established in Remscheid,

Witech GmbH

Kurt Zecher GmbH, established in Paderborn (Germany),

Kurt Zecher GmbH

De Martin AG, Metallveredelung, established in Wängi,

De Martin AG, Metallveredelung

Hattler & Sohn GmbH, established in Villingen-Schwenningen,

Hattler & Sohn GmbH

Alfacrom 2000 Srl, established in Fiume Veneto (Italy),

Alfacrom 2000 Srl

F.LLI Angelini Sud Srl, established in Arzano (Italy),

F.LLI Angelini Sud Srl

Bertola Srl, established in Marene (Italy),

Bertola Srl

Bugli Srl, established in Scandicci (Italy),

Bugli Srl

Burello Srl, established in Pavia di Udine (Italy),

Burello Srl

Galvanica CMB Di Bittante Franco EC Snc, established in Scorzé (Italy),

Galvanica CMB Di Bittante Franco EC Snc

Casprini Gruppo Industriale SpA, established in Cavrilia (Italy),

Casprini Gruppo Industriale SpA

CFG Rettifiche Srl, established in Argenta (Italy),

CFG Rettifiche Srl

CIL — Cromatura e Rettifica Srl, established in Esine (Italy),

CIL — Cromatura e Rettifica Srl

Cromatura Dura Srl, established in Lozza (Italy),

Cromatura Dura Srl

Cromital Srl, established in Parme (Italy),

Cromital Srl

Cromoflesch Di Bolletta Giuseppe & C. Snc, established in Salzano (Italy),

Cromoflesch Di Bolletta Giuseppe & C. Snc

Cromogalante Srl, established in Padua (Italy),

Cromogalante Srl

Cromotrevigiana Srl, established in Ponzano Veneto (Italy),

Cromotrevigiana Srl

Elezinco Srl, established in Castelfidardo (Italy),

Elezinco Srl

Galvanica Nobili Srl, established in Marano sul Panaro (Italy),

Galvanica Nobili Srl

Galvanotecnica Vignati Srl, established in Canegrate (Italy),

Galvanotecnica Vignati Srl

Galvitek Srl, established in Verona (Italy),

Galvitek Srl

Gilardoni Vittorio Srl, established in Mandello del Lario (Italy),

Gilardoni Vittorio Srl

Industria Galvanica Dalla Torre Ermanno e Figli Srl, established in Villorba (Italy),

Industria Galvanica Dalla Torre Ermanno e Figli Srl

La Galvanica Trentina Srl, established in Rovereto (Italy),

La Galvanica Trentina Srl

Nicros Srl, established in Conegliano (Italy),

Nicros Srl

OCM Di Liboà Mauro & C. Snc, established in Mondovì (Italy),

OCM Di Liboà Mauro & C. Snc

Rubinetterie Zazzeri SpA, established in Incisa Valdarno (Italy),

Rubinetterie Zazzeri SpA

Silga SpA, established in Castelfidarno (Italy),

Silga SpA

Surcromo Di Suttora Marco, established in Pieve Emanuele (Italy),

Surcromo Di Suttora Marco

Tobaldini SpA, established in Altavilla Vicentina (Italy),

Tobaldini SpA

Tre Albi SNC Di Trentin Silvano Bittante Mario & Albanese Giancarlo, established in Vedelago (Italy),

Tre Albi SNC Di Trentin Silvano Bittante Mario & Albanese Giancarlo

Adolf Boos GmbH & Co. KG, established in Iserlohn,

Adolf Boos GmbH & Co. KG

Henkel Beiz- und Elektropoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG, established in Waidhofen an der Thaya (Austria),

Henkel Beiz- und Elektropoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG

Saueressig GmbH & Co. KG, established in Vreden (Germany),

Saueressig GmbH & Co. KG

Saueressig Polska sp. z o.o., established in Tarnowo Podgórne (Poland),

Saueressig Polska sp. z o.o

Wetzel GmbH, established in Grenzach-Wyhlen (Germany),

Wetzel GmbH

Wetzel sp. z o.o., established in Duchnów (Poland),

Wetzel sp. z o.o

Apex Cylinders Ltd, established in Bristol (United Kingdom),

Apex Cylinders Ltd

Federal-Mogul Burscheid GmbH, established in Burscheid,

Federal-Mogul Burscheid GmbH

Federal-Mogul Friedberg GmbH, established in Friedberg (Germany),

Federal-Mogul Friedberg GmbH

Federal-Mogul Vermögensverwaltungs-GmbH, established in Burscheid,

Federal-Mogul Vermögensverwaltungs-GmbH

Federal-Mogul Operations France SAS, established in Saint-Jean-de-la-Ruelle (France),

Federal-Mogul Operations France SAS

Dietmar Schrick GmbH, established in Solingen,

Dietmar Schrick GmbH

Cromatura Dalla Torre Sergio Snc Di Dalla Torre Sergio EC, established in Breda di Tiave (Italy),

Cromatura Dalla Torre Sergio Snc Di Dalla Torre Sergio EC

Hartchromwerk Brunner AG, established in Sankt Gallen (Switzerland),

Hartchromwerk Brunner AG

Schulz Hartchrom GmbH, established in Hamburg,

Schulz Hartchrom GmbH

ANNEX II

ANNEX II

List of interveners at first instance

List of interveners at first instance

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA),

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA),

Assogalvanica, established in Padua,

Assogalvanica

Ecometal, established in Trévise (Italy),

Ecometal

Comité européen pour le traitement de surface (CETS), established in Louvain (Belgium),

Comité européen pour le traitement de surface (CETS)

Österreichische Gesellschaft für Oberflächentechnik (AOT), established in Vienna,

Österreichische Gesellschaft für Oberflächentechnik (AOT)

Surface Engineering Association (SEA), established in Birmingham (United Kingdom),

Surface Engineering Association (SEA)

Zentralverband Oberflächentechnik eV (ZVO), established in Hilden (Germany),

Zentralverband Oberflächentechnik eV (ZVO)

Eco-Chim Galvanotecnica di Antoniazzi G. & C. Snc, established in Codognè (Italy),

Eco-Chim Galvanotecnica di Antoniazzi G. & C. Snc

Heiche Oberflächentechnik GmbH, established in Schwaigern (Germany),

Heiche Oberflächentechnik GmbH

Schwäbische Härtetechnik Ulm GmbH & Co. KG, established in Ulm,

Schwäbische Härtetechnik Ulm GmbH & Co. KG

Trattamento superfici metalliche Srl (TSM), established in Schio (Italy),

Trattamento superfici metalliche Srl (TSM)

Aros Hydraulik GmbH, established in Memmingen,

Aros Hydraulik GmbH

Berndorf Band GmbH, established in Berndorf (Austria),

Berndorf Band GmbH

Eberhard Derichs Maschinen- und Apparatebau GmbH, established in Krefeld (Germany),

Eberhard Derichs Maschinen- und Apparatebau GmbH

Friedrich Fausel Metalldrückerei, established in Herrlingen (Germany),

Friedrich Fausel Metalldrückerei

Goldhofer AG, established in Memmingen,

Goldhofer AG

Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG, established in Heidelberg (Germany),

Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG

Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Germany GmbH & Co. KG, established in Ronsberg (Germany),

Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Germany GmbH & Co. KG

ITW Automotive Products GmbH, established in Hodenhagen (Germany),

ITW Automotive Products GmbH

Josef Van Baal GmbH, established in Krefeld,

Josef Van Baal GmbH

Kleinvoigtsberger Elektrobauelemente GmbH, established in Großschirma (Germany),

Kleinvoigtsberger Elektrobauelemente GmbH

Kniggendorf & Kögler GmbH, established in Laatzen (Germany),

Kniggendorf & Kögler GmbH

Liebherr-Components Kirchdorf GmbH, established in Kirchdorf (Germany),

Liebherr-Components Kirchdorf GmbH

Max Hilscher GmbH, established in Dornstadt (Germany),

Max Hilscher GmbH

Mora Metrology GmbH, established in Aschaffenburg (Germany),

Mora Metrology GmbH

Norsystec — Nohra-System-Technik GmbH, established in Nohra (Germany),

Norsystec — Nohra-System-Technik GmbH

Otto Littmann Maschinenfabrik — Präzisionsmechanik GmbH, established in Hamburg,

Otto Littmann Maschinenfabrik — Präzisionsmechanik GmbH

Provertha Connectors Cables & Solutions GmbH, established in Pforzheim (Germany),

Provertha Connectors Cables & Solutions GmbH

Roland Merz, residing in Ober-Ramstadt (Germany),

Roland Merz

Schwing-Stetter Baumaschinen GmbH, established in Vienna,

Schwing-Stetter Baumaschinen GmbH

SML Maschinengesellschaft mbH, established in Lenzing (Austria),

SML Maschinengesellschaft mbH

ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG, established in Duisbourg (Germany),

ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG

Windmöller & Hölscher KG, established in Lengerich (Germany).

Windmöller & Hölscher KG

---

(
  *1
  )	Language of the case: English

*1