# C_2017300EN.01003301.xml

| 11.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/33

---

Action brought on 12 July 2017 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission

(Case T-436/17)

(2017/C 300/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium), The International Chemical Secretariat (Gothenburg, Sweden), International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) (Gothenburg) (represented by: A. Jones, Barrister)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

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 Commission’s decision C(2017) 2914 final, dated 2 May 2017, refusing to review the Commission decision C(2016)5644 granting an authorization for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulphate red under 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) (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission’s decision C(2017) 2914 final, dated 2 May 2017, refusing to review the Commission decision C(2016)5644 granting an authorization for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulphate red under 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) (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1);

| — | annul Commission decision C(2016)5644; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision C(2016)5644;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs, and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs, and

| — | order any other measure deemed appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

order any other measure deemed appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the alleged conformity of the application for authorisation of DCC Maastricht BV within the meaning of Articles 62 and 60(7) of the REACH regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the alleged conformity of the application for authorisation of DCC Maastricht BV within the meaning of Articles 62 and 60(7) of the REACH regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment under Article 60(4) of the REACH regulation regarding the socio-economic assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment under Article 60(4) of the REACH regulation regarding the socio-economic assessment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment under Articles 60(4) and 60(5) of the REACH regulation regarding the analysis of alternatives. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment under Articles 60(4) and 60(5) of the REACH regulation regarding the analysis of alternatives.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the application of general principles of EU law, including the duty to state reasons and the precautionary principle, in the context of the authorisation process under the REACH regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that decision C(2017) 2914 final is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the application of general principles of EU law, including the duty to state reasons and the precautionary principle, in the context of the authorisation process under the REACH regulation.

---