# C_2023179EN.01005102.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/51

---

Action brought on 9 January 2023 — Koppers Denmark and Others v Commission

(Case T-9/23)

(2023/C 179/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Koppers Denmark (Nyborg, Denmark) and 9 others (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, 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 Regulation, (1) in as far as it introduces restrictions on the placing on the market of treated articles; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested Regulation, (1) in as far as it introduces restrictions on the placing on the market of treated articles;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings; and,

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

—

take such other or further measures as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 14(4), 58(2) and 58(3) of the BPR, (2) acted ultra vires/exceeded its competences and breached the applicants’ legitimate expectations by imposing the Restrictions on the Treated Articles. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 14(4), 58(2) and 58(3) of the BPR, (2) acted ultra vires/exceeded its competences and breached the applicants’ legitimate expectations by imposing the Restrictions on the Treated Articles.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and breached the principle of legal certainty and the duty to state reasons by imposing the Restrictions on the Treated Articles. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and breached the principle of legal certainty and the duty to state reasons by imposing the Restrictions on the Treated Articles.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations by prohibiting the placing on the market of treated articles without having established the existence of a ‘major concern’ thereby diverging from its own guidance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations by prohibiting the placing on the market of treated articles without having established the existence of a ‘major concern’ thereby diverging from its own guidance.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 1(1) of the BPR and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by imposing the Restrictions on the Treated Articles. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 1(1) of the BPR and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by imposing the Restrictions on the Treated Articles.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of legal certainty and committed manifest errors of fact and of assessment by failing to take into account all relevant information when introducing a labelling requirement concerning the storage requirements of treated articles in the Contested Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of legal certainty and committed manifest errors of fact and of assessment by failing to take into account all relevant information when introducing a labelling requirement concerning the storage requirements of treated articles in the Contested Regulation.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 67-68, 129 and Annex XVII entry 31 of the REACH Regulation (3) and failed to take all relevant information into account and exceeded its competences under Article 14(4) of the BPR when imposing the Restrictions in the Contested Regulation limiting the existing restrictions under the REACH Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 67-68, 129 and Annex XVII entry 31 of the REACH Regulation (3) and failed to take all relevant information into account and exceeded its competences under Article 14(4) of the BPR when imposing the Restrictions in the Contested Regulation limiting the existing restrictions under the REACH Regulation.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1950 of 14 October 2022 renewing the approval of creosote as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 8 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2022, L 269, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, as amended (OJ 2012, L 167, p. 1).

(3)  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, as amended.(OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1).

---