# C_2021228EN.01003202.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/32

---

Action brought on 16 April 2021 — Polynt v ECHA

(Case T-207/21)

(2021/C 228/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polynt SpA (Scanzorosciate, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu, P. Sellar, and S. Abdel-Qader, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare this application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare this application admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order ECHA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency of 9 February 2021 by which it upholds the ECHA decision requesting to carry out additional tests as part of the evaluation of the substance Hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride (case A-015-2019) pursuant to Article 40 of Regulation (CE) no 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council (1) (‘REACH Regulation’). In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred in law when it reviewed the lawfulness of ECHA’s decision TPE-D-2114483466-38-01/F of 4 September 2019 on a testing proposal for the substance Hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride (EC number 243-072-0 and CAS number 19438-60-9) (‘4-MHHPA’); |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred in law when it reviewed the lawfulness of ECHA’s decision TPE-D-2114483466-38-01/F of 4 September 2019 on a testing proposal for the substance Hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride (EC number 243-072-0 and CAS number 19438-60-9) (‘4-MHHPA’);

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred in law when it concluded that the examination of testing proposals is the same as for the examination of a Compliance Check; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred in law when it concluded that the examination of testing proposals is the same as for the examination of a Compliance Check;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal failed to apply the correct legal test and to consider the Applicant’s arguments, reversed the burden of proof in relation to the requirements of Column 2 of the Section 8.7.3. of the Annex X to the REACH Regulation and failed to address the appellant’s arguments regarding the findings of the WHO Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 75;; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal failed to apply the correct legal test and to consider the Applicant’s arguments, reversed the burden of proof in relation to the requirements of Column 2 of the Section 8.7.3. of the Annex X to the REACH Regulation and failed to address the appellant’s arguments regarding the findings of the WHO Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 75;;

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal violated/misapplied Articles 91 to 93 of the REACH Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal violated/misapplied Articles 91 to 93 of the REACH Regulation;

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal failed to address the applicant’s pleas in relation to the violation of Article 13 of the TFEU, Article 25 of the REACH Regulation and the principles of protection of animal welfare, proportionality and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal failed to address the applicant’s pleas in relation to the violation of Article 13 of the TFEU, Article 25 of the REACH Regulation and the principles of protection of animal welfare, proportionality and sound administration.

---

(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 (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1)

---