Information;Order — ECLI:EU:T:2025:1059
Date: 2025-11-21
Language of the case: English
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Procedure: Action for annulment;Application for interim measures - unfounded;Application for interim measures - inadmissible
Origin: Germany;France

Action brought on 8 July 2025 – Arkema France and Miwon Europe v ECHA (Case T-448/25) Language of the case: English Parties Applicants: Arkema France (Puteaux, France), Miwon Europe GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: R. Cana and E. Mullier, lawyers) Defendant: European Chemicals Agency Form of order sought The applicants claim that the Court should: Declare the application admissible and well founded; Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency A-003-2024 of 29 April 2025 (“the Contested Decision”) in its entirety; Take measures such that 2024 Decision is devoid of effects, to allow for an effective remedy for the applicants; Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings; and Take such other or further measure as justice may require. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant had breached Article 93(1) of REACH Regulation by adopting a new, separate 2024 Decision in the context of the rectification procedure, and breached the principle of legal certainty. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant had breached Article 41 and Article 42(1) of the REACH Regulation, and exceeded its competence under these provisions. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant had breached Article 42 of REACH Regulation and exceeded its competence because it concluded the dossier non-compliant on the basis of considerations that go beyond the standard requirements of the relevant REACH Annex. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant had committed a manifest error of assessment and failed to take all relevant information into account by concluding that (i) the dose level selection in the one-generation reproductive toxicity study (“ EOGRTS”) was inadequate; and (ii) the immunotoxicity assay (“TDAR assay”) was unreliable, rendering the EOGRTS non-compliant. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant had breached the principle of proportionality, the principle of legal certainty and Article 25 of REACH Regulation by not considering other means to fulfil the alleged data gap, and by failing to allow the applicants to comply with the defendant’s request by submitting an adaptation under Annex XI of REACH Regulation. ____________