# C_2017293EN.01002301.xml

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/23

---

Appeal brought on 11 July 2017 by Deza, a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 May 2017 in Case T-115/15 Deza, a.s. v ECHA

(Case C-419/17 P)

(2017/C 293/28)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

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

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Norway

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 in Case T-115/15, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 in Case T-115/15,

| — | annul the decision of the ECHA of 12 December 2014, No ED/108/2014, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the ECHA of 12 December 2014, No ED/108/2014,

| — | order the ECHA to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice and in the previous proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECHA to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice and in the previous proceedings before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | The General Court interpreted and applied the REACH regulation incorrectly.
  The General Court interpreted and applied the REACH regulation incorrectly. The appellant remains of the view that the decision of the ECHA was adopted ultra vires, since (i) the ECHA does not have power to supplement the existing identification of the substance DEHP under Article 57(c) of REACH by a new identification of that substance under Article 57(f) of REACH; (ii) the adoption of the decision of the ECHA was preceded by an unlawful procedure; and (iii) the decision of the ECHA circumvents the legally binding procedure laid down by the Council and the European Parliament for the adoption of generally binding/harmonised criteria for the identification of substances with endocrine-disrupting properties. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court interpreted and applied the REACH regulation incorrectly.

The General Court interpreted and applied the REACH regulation incorrectly. The appellant remains of the view that the decision of the ECHA was adopted ultra vires, since (i) the ECHA does not have power to supplement the existing identification of the substance DEHP under Article 57(c) of REACH by a new identification of that substance under Article 57(f) of REACH; (ii) the adoption of the decision of the ECHA was preceded by an unlawful procedure; and (iii) the decision of the ECHA circumvents the legally binding procedure laid down by the Council and the European Parliament for the adoption of generally binding/harmonised criteria for the identification of substances with endocrine-disrupting properties.

| 2. | The General Court interpreted and applied the principle of legal certainty incorrectly.
  Where (i) the decision of the ECHA created an unclear, imprecise and unforeseeable legal situation, which makes it impossible for the appellant to find out the precise extent of the obligations imposed on it; (ii) there are no generally binding/harmonised criteria for the identification of substances with endocrine-disrupting properties; and (iii) the ECHA does not have power to supplement the existing identification of the substance DEPH under Article 57(c) of REACH by an identification of it under Article 57(f) of REACH, the General Court’s conclusion that the decision of the ECHA does not conflict with the principle of legal certainty is incorrect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

Where (i) the decision of the ECHA created an unclear, imprecise and unforeseeable legal situation, which makes it impossible for the appellant to find out the precise extent of the obligations imposed on it; (ii) there are no generally binding/harmonised criteria for the identification of substances with endocrine-disrupting properties; and (iii) the ECHA does not have power to supplement the existing identification of the substance DEPH under Article 57(c) of REACH by an identification of it under Article 57(f) of REACH, the General Court’s conclusion that the decision of the ECHA does not conflict with the principle of legal certainty is incorrect.

| 3. | The General Court reviewed the decision of the ECHA in a manner conflicting with the requirements of judicial review of the decisions of EU institutions and bodies, and distorted the facts and evidence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The General Court reviewed the decision of the ECHA in a manner conflicting with the requirements of judicial review of the decisions of EU institutions and bodies, and distorted the facts and evidence.

| 4. | As a consequence of the defects set out above, the General Court infringed 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 procedure, the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, and the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

4.

As a consequence of the defects set out above, the General Court infringed 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 procedure, the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, and the principle of legal certainty.

---