# C_2021053EN.01004401.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/44

---

Action brought on 27 October 2020 — Symrise v ECHA

(Case T-655/20)

(2021/C 53/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Symrise AG (Holzminden, Germany) (represented by: A, B, C, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision of 18 August 2020 of the European Chemicals Agency’s Board of Appeal in case number A-010-2018 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision of 18 August 2020 of the European Chemicals Agency’s Board of Appeal in case number A-010-2018 in its entirety;

| — | order the Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment and misinterpreted the REACH Regulation by requesting the tests on vertebrate animals on the Substance, by justifying the need for tests by reference to workers’ exposure and by failing to take the safety of the Substance as assessed under the Cosmetics Regulation into account. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment and misinterpreted the REACH Regulation by requesting the tests on vertebrate animals on the Substance, by justifying the need for tests by reference to workers’ exposure and by failing to take the safety of the Substance as assessed under the Cosmetics Regulation into account.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty to state reasons by requesting the extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study with several extensions (the ‘EOGRTS’). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty to state reasons by requesting the extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study with several extensions (the ‘EOGRTS’).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment of the information available to it and breached its duty to state reasons by deciding that the EOGRTS would need to be conducted via the oral route. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment of the information available to it and breached its duty to state reasons by deciding that the EOGRTS would need to be conducted via the oral route.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Agency, by requesting the Long-term toxicity study on fish (OECD TG 234) under Section 9.1.6.1. of Annex IX of the REACH Regulation, committed a manifest error of assessment and misinterpreted column 2 of section 9.1 of Annex IX, breached the applicant’s right to be heard and breached Article 25 of the REACH Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Agency, by requesting the Long-term toxicity study on fish (OECD TG 234) under Section 9.1.6.1. of Annex IX of the REACH Regulation, committed a manifest error of assessment and misinterpreted column 2 of section 9.1 of Annex IX, breached the applicant’s right to be heard and breached Article 25 of the REACH Regulation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to take into account all relevant information, breached Article 25 of the REACH Regulation and committed a manifest error of assessment in imposing the deadlines of the Contested Decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to take into account all relevant information, breached Article 25 of the REACH Regulation and committed a manifest error of assessment in imposing the deadlines of the Contested Decision.

---