# C_2014129EN.01003901.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/39

---

Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-689/13

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 85 of 22 March 2014, p. 21
  )

(2014/C 129/47)

The OJ notice in Case T-689/13 Bilbaina de Alquitranes and Others v Commission should read as follows:

Bilbaina de Alquitranes and Others

Commission

‘Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Bilbaina de Alquitranes and Others v Commission

(Case T-689/13)

(2014/C 85/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA (Luchana-Baracaldo, Vizcaya, Spain); Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic); Industrial Química del Nalón, SA (Oviedo, Spain); Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark); Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom); Koppers Netherlands BV (Uithoorn, Netherlands); Rütgers basic aromatics GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany); Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium); Rütgers Poland Sp. z o.o. (Kędzierzyn-Koźle, Poland); Bawtry Carbon International Ltd (Doncaster, United Kingdom); Grupo Ferroatlántica, SA (Madrid, Spain); SGL Carbon GmbH (Meitingen, Germany); SGL Carbon GmbH (Bad Goisern am Hallstättersee, Austria); SGL Carbon (Passy, France); SGL Carbon, SA (La Coruña, Spain); SGL Carbon Polska S.A. (Racibórz, Poland); ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany); and Tokai Erftcarbon GmbH (Grevenbroich, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare the Application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the Application admissible and well-founded;

| — | Annul the Contested Act as far as it classifies CTPHT as H400 and H410; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Contested Act as far as it classifies CTPHT as H400 and H410;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (‘the CLP Regulation’) (OJ L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classifies pitch, coal tar, high temp CAS Number 65996-93-2 (‘CTPHT’) as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) (the ‘Contested Act’).

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful because it infringes the REACH and CLP provisions regarding classification of substances as toxic for the aquatic environment and studies which must be accepted for this purpose, as well as the principle of equal treatment, in so far as it rejected studies performed according to REACH and OECD guidelines and it required testing without any accepted standardised method. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful because it infringes the REACH and CLP provisions regarding classification of substances as toxic for the aquatic environment and studies which must be accepted for this purpose, as well as the principle of equal treatment, in so far as it rejected studies performed according to REACH and OECD guidelines and it required testing without any accepted standardised method.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful because it is based on a manifest error of assessment since it failed to take into consideration the inert inherent properties of CTPHT which have notably a significant impact on UV light testing and the application of the summation method; it established M-factors for PAH constituents without a proper assessment of the studies relied upon and it rejected information provided by the Applicants without valid justification. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful because it is based on a manifest error of assessment since it failed to take into consideration the inert inherent properties of CTPHT which have notably a significant impact on UV light testing and the application of the summation method; it established M-factors for PAH constituents without a proper assessment of the studies relied upon and it rejected information provided by the Applicants without valid justification.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful because it breached the EU law principles of transparency and right of defence.’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful because it breached the EU law principles of transparency and right of defence.’

---