# C_2020054EN.01003601.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/36

---

Appeal brought on 29 November 2019 by PlasticsEurope against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2019 in Case T-636/17, PlasticsEurope v ECHA

(Case C-876/19 P)

(2020/C 54/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PlasticsEurope (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier, F. Mattioli, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency, French Republic, ClientEarth

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-636/17; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-636/17;

| — | annul the Decision ED/30/2017 by the Executive Director of ECHA of 6 July 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision ED/30/2017 by the Executive Director of ECHA of 6 July 2017;

| — | Alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the appellant’s application for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the appellant’s application for annulment;

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law:

| A. | The General Court erred in law by misinterpreting REACH (1) and by holding that the Agency is not required to demonstrate the existence of scientific evidence of probable serious effects pursuant to Article 57(f) of REACH. |
| --- | --- |

A.

The General Court erred in law by misinterpreting REACH (1) and by holding that the Agency is not required to demonstrate the existence of scientific evidence of probable serious effects pursuant to Article 57(f) of REACH.

| B. | The General Court erred in law in the assessment of the evidence available to it and in the assessment of the facts as supported by that evidence. In particular, the Court erred in concluding that the ECHA had established ‘probable’ serious effects; failed to assess whether the ECHA had in fact evaluated the information on the equivalent level of concern, and instead erroneously relied on the ECHA’s assertion that that criterion had been met; erred in dismissing the appellant’s plea related to the relevance of European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA)‘s conclusions for the case at hand; erred in concluding that EFSA’s conclusions support and are consistent with the ECHA’s decision; distorted the evidence submitted by the parties. |
| --- | --- |

B.

The General Court erred in law in the assessment of the evidence available to it and in the assessment of the facts as supported by that evidence. In particular, the Court erred in concluding that the ECHA had established ‘probable’ serious effects; failed to assess whether the ECHA had in fact evaluated the information on the equivalent level of concern, and instead erroneously relied on the ECHA’s assertion that that criterion had been met; erred in dismissing the appellant’s plea related to the relevance of European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA)‘s conclusions for the case at hand; erred in concluding that EFSA’s conclusions support and are consistent with the ECHA’s decision; distorted the evidence submitted by the parties.

| C. | The General Court has breached the principle of equal treatment by treating the appellant less favourably than the ECHA. |
| --- | --- |

C.

The General Court has breached the principle of equal treatment by treating the appellant less favourably than the ECHA.

| D. | The General Court erred in law in misinterpreting Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation and breached its duty to state reasons by failing to address the additional arguments on intermediates made by the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

D.

The General Court erred in law in misinterpreting Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation and breached its duty to state reasons by failing to address the additional arguments on intermediates made by the appellant.

---

(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, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).

---