Case C-289/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-95/10: CINDU Chemicals BV and others v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
Date: 2013-05-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical product, classification, equal treatment, product safety








C_2013252EN.01001701.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/17





Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-95/10: CINDU Chemicals BV and others v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
(Case C-289/13 P)
2013/C 252/25
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-95/10; and










—


annul Decision ED/68/2009 of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) (the ‘Contested Decision’) identifying Anthracene Oil (Low) as a substance to be included on the Candidate List in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (‘REACH’) (1), or










—


alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the appellants’ application for annulment; and
order the respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for partial annulment in respect of the contested decision, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the appellants’ situation. That resulted in the General Court making a number of errors in law; in particular:






—


in finding that the case related to complex scientific and technical facts and that the identification of anthracene oil (low) as having PBT and vPvB properties on the basis of its constituents present in a concentration of at least 0.1% was not vitiated by a manifest error;










—


the constituents do not have to be individually identified as having PBT or vPvB properties in a separate ECHA decision based on a thorough assessment for that purpose;










—


Article 59(3) and Annex XV of REACH were not breached because information on alternative substances was not included in the Annex XV dossier; and










—


that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment




For these reasons the appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-95/10 should be set aside and the contested decision should be annulled.


(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 L 396, p. 1