# C_2019399EN.01008001.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/80

---

Action brought on 24 September 2019 – Chemours Netherlands v ECHA

(Case T-636/19)

(2019/C 399/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chemours Netherlands BV (Dordrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and F. Mattioli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it includes 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides (covering any of their individual isomers and combinations thereof) in the candidate list of substances of very high concern as a substance of equivalent concern for human health and/or in so far as it includes 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides (covering any of their individual isomers and combinations thereof) in the candidate list as a substance of equivalent concern for the environment; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it includes 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides (covering any of their individual isomers and combinations thereof) in the candidate list of substances of very high concern as a substance of equivalent concern for human health and/or in so far as it includes 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides (covering any of their individual isomers and combinations thereof) in the candidate list as a substance of equivalent concern for the environment;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings; and

| — | take such other or further measure as justice may require. |
| --- | --- |

—

take such other or further measure as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Agency breached Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) and exceeded its competence under this provision, and manifestly erred in its assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Agency breached Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) and exceeded its competence under this provision, and manifestly erred in its assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality since it is not necessary or appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality since it is not necessary or appropriate.

---

(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 L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

---