Appeal brought on 14 June 2019 by ClientEarth against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 4 April 2019 in Case T-108/17: ClientEarth v Commission

(Case C-458/19 P)

(2019/C 263/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: A. Jones, barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-108/17;

— refer the case back to the General Court for consideration; or, alternatively

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-108/17, and

— declare the application for annulment admissible and well-founded and consequently annul the contested decision, and, in any event,

— order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the intervening parties, at first instance and in appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First Ground: Error of law in declaring that the action before the General Court ‘can concern only the legality of the decision on the request for internal review and not the sufficiency or otherwise of the application for authorisation’ and that ‘the pleas and arguments raised before the General Court in an action for annulment of a decision rejecting a request for internal review can be regarded only in so far as those pleas and arguments have already been presented by the applicant in the request for internal review,’ and in rejecting as inadmissible certain parts of the appellants’ application for annulment on these bases.

Second Ground: Error of law in applying too high a standard of evidence on Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) bringing challenges under Articles 10 and 12 of the Aarhus Regulation (1).

Third Ground: Error of law in ruling that reducing the amount of a virgin SVHC (2) produced or used by using instead the recycled version of the SVHC, may constitute a function in conformity with the REACH Regulation (3) and the basis for a relevant analysis of alternative.

Fourth Ground: Error of law in interpreting the conformity assessment provided under Article 60(7) of the REACH Regulation as purely formal without requiring to verify whether the information provided by an application actually fulfills the requirements of Article 62 and Annex I.

Fifth Ground: Error of law in interpreting Article 60(4) as allowing to conclude on the balance between risks and benefits without information on the risk fulfilling the requirements of Annex I.

Sixth Ground: Error of law in ruling that ‘in light of Article 60(2) and Article 62(4)(d) of Regulation No 1907/2006, it should be concluded that only data relating to the intrinsic properties of a substance that have been included in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006 are relevant for the risk assessment referred to in the first sentence of Article 60(4)’.

Seventh Ground: Error of law in the General Court’s interpretation of the precautionary principle.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006, L 264, p. 13).

(2) Substance of very high concern.

(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 (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1).