# C_2020191EN.01002001.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/20

---

Action brought on 27 February 2020 — France v ECHA

(Case T-127/20)

(2020/C 191/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères and E. Leclerc, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the ECHA of 17 December 2019 in joined cases A-003-2018, A-004-2018 and A-005-2018 annulling the ECHA’s three decisions of 21 December 2017 on the substance evaluation of aluminium chloride, aluminium chloride basic and aluminium sulphate; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the ECHA of 17 December 2019 in joined cases A-003-2018, A-004-2018 and A-005-2018 annulling the ECHA’s three decisions of 21 December 2017 on the substance evaluation of aluminium chloride, aluminium chloride basic and aluminium sulphate;

| — | order the ECHA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECHA to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas, alleging an error of law.

| 1. | First plea in law, in which the applicant alleges that the Board of Appeal erred in law in finding, in the contested decision, that the ECHA should have taken into account the Schönholzer (1997) study even though that study had not been introduced to it during the evaluation procedure. In that regard, the applicant raises the following complaints:






  — | first, infringement of Article 47(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); |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, in which the applicant alleges that the Board of Appeal erred in law in finding, in the contested decision, that the ECHA should have taken into account the Schönholzer (1997) study even though that study had not been introduced to it during the evaluation procedure. In that regard, the applicant raises the following complaints:

—

first, infringement of Article 47(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);

| — | second, breach of the duty on manufacturers and importers to provide all relevant and available information on the risks presented by the substances, which constitutes one of the core principles of the protection system established by that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

second, breach of the duty on manufacturers and importers to provide all relevant and available information on the risks presented by the substances, which constitutes one of the core principles of the protection system established by that regulation;

| — | third, the exercise of an inadequate standard of review of the ECHA’s three decisions on the substance evaluations concerned. |
| --- | --- |

—

third, the exercise of an inadequate standard of review of the ECHA’s three decisions on the substance evaluations concerned.

| 2. | Second plea in law, in which the applicant alleges that the Board of Appeal erred in law in relying, in the contested decision, on an erroneous interpretation of the case-law of the General Court of the European Union according to which, in order to demonstrate that a request for additional information on a substance is necessary, the ECHA must, inter alia, establish that there is a realistic possibility that the information requested would lead to improved risk management measures being taken. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, in which the applicant alleges that the Board of Appeal erred in law in relying, in the contested decision, on an erroneous interpretation of the case-law of the General Court of the European Union according to which, in order to demonstrate that a request for additional information on a substance is necessary, the ECHA must, inter alia, establish that there is a realistic possibility that the information requested would lead to improved risk management measures being taken.

---