# C_2019093EN.01003101.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/31

---

Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by Deza, a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 October 2018 in Case T-400/17 Deza v Commission

(Case C-813/18 P)

(2019/C 93/41)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Deza, a.s. (represented by: P. Dejl, advokát)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden, European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 in Case T-400/17; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2018 in Case T-400/17;

| — | annul in part Commission Regulation (EU) No 2017/776 (1) of 4 May 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008, in so far as it concerns the classification and labelling of the substance anthraquinone; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Commission Regulation (EU) No 2017/776 (1) of 4 May 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008, in so far as it concerns the classification and labelling of the substance anthraquinone;

| — | order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs incurred in the present appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice and in the previous proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs incurred in the present appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice and in the previous proceedings before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward four grounds of appeal.

| 1. | The General Court interpreted and applied the CLP Regulation (2) incorrectly, in particular the following basic principles: (i) the substance evaluated and classified must be placed on the EU market; (ii) a causal link between a substance and carcinogenic effects in test animals must be demonstrated by sufficient evidence; (iii) sufficient evidence must be obtained from reliable and admissible scientific studies; and (iv) classification of a substance must take account of new scientific and technical knowledge and scientific and technical progress. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court interpreted and applied the CLP Regulation (2) incorrectly, in particular the following basic principles: (i) the substance evaluated and classified must be placed on the EU market; (ii) a causal link between a substance and carcinogenic effects in test animals must be demonstrated by sufficient evidence; (iii) sufficient evidence must be obtained from reliable and admissible scientific studies; and (iv) classification of a substance must take account of new scientific and technical knowledge and scientific and technical progress.

| 2. | The General Court reviewed the classification of anthraquinone, in other words part of the Commission Regulation, in a manner contrary to the requirements for judicial review of decisions of the EU institutions and bodies, and distorted the facts and evidence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court reviewed the classification of anthraquinone, in other words part of the Commission Regulation, in a manner contrary to the requirements for judicial review of decisions of the EU institutions and bodies, and distorted the facts and evidence.

| 3. | The General Court interpreted and applied the principle of legal certainty incorrectly. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court interpreted and applied the principle of legal certainty incorrectly.

| 4. | As a result of the above defects, the General Court breached the appellant’s rights and the principles laid down in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to a fair hearing, the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property, and the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

4.

As a result of the above defects, the General Court breached the appellant’s rights and the principles laid down in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to a fair hearing, the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property, and the principle of legal certainty.

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 116, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ 2008 L 353, p. 1).

---