# C_2016048EN.01002501.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/25

---

Appeal brought on 4 December 2015 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 25/09/2015 in Case T-268/10 RENV: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

(Case C-650/15 P)

(2016/C 048/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS (represented by: R. Cana, avocat, D. Abrahams, barrister, E. Mullier, avocate)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/10 RENV; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/10 RENV;

| — | Annul the Contested Act; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Contested Act;

| — | Alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellants’ application for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellants’ application for annulment;

| — | Order the Respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/10 RENV which dismissed the Appellants’ action for annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) to identify acrylamide as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation No. 1907/2006 (1) concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006.

1

The pleas in law relied on by the Appellants can be summarised as follows:

| 1. | the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the REACH Regulation in its interpretation of the definition of ‘intermediates’ in Article 3(15) of the REACH Regulation






  a) | by interpreting the end uses of the synthesised substance as an exclusion criterion contrary to the clear wording of Article 3(15); |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the REACH Regulation in its interpretation of the definition of ‘intermediates’ in Article 3(15) of the REACH Regulation

a)

by interpreting the end uses of the synthesised substance as an exclusion criterion contrary to the clear wording of Article 3(15);

| b) | by interpreting the definition of ‘intermediates’ in a manner contrary to the purpose of the provisions of the REACH Regulation; and |
| --- | --- |

b)

by interpreting the definition of ‘intermediates’ in a manner contrary to the purpose of the provisions of the REACH Regulation; and

| c) | by failing to assess independently, and relying on irrelevant sections of, Appendix 4 of the ECHA Guidance on Intermediates; |
| --- | --- |

c)

by failing to assess independently, and relying on irrelevant sections of, Appendix 4 of the ECHA Guidance on Intermediates;

| 2. | the General Court breached the duty to state reasons by failing to address the Appellants’ argument that Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation covers Title VII of the REACH Regulation in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

2.

the General Court breached the duty to state reasons by failing to address the Appellants’ argument that Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation covers Title VII of the REACH Regulation in its entirety;

| 3. | the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the REACH Regulation insofar as it ruled that intermediates are not exempted from Article 59 of the REACH Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

3.

the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the REACH Regulation insofar as it ruled that intermediates are not exempted from Article 59 of the REACH Regulation;

| 4. | the General Court erred in law in ruling that the Respondent has not committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to take into consideration the information in Annex XV of the REACH Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

4.

the General Court erred in law in ruling that the Respondent has not committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to take into consideration the information in Annex XV of the REACH Regulation;

| 5. | the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the proportionality of the Contested Act; and |
| --- | --- |

5.

the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the proportionality of the Contested Act; and

| 6. | the General Court breached its duty to state reasons by failing to address the less onerous measures put forward by the Appellants. |
| --- | --- |

6.

the General Court breached its duty to state reasons by failing to address the less onerous measures put forward by the Appellants.

---

(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

1

OJ L 396, p. 1

---