Case T-360/13: Action brought on 8 July 2013 — VECCO and Others v Commission
Date: 2013-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, carcinogenic substance, health control, health risk, market approval, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, toxic substance








C_2013260EN.01004501.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/45





Action brought on 8 July 2013 — VECCO and Others v Commission
(Case T-360/13)
2013/C 260/81
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) (Memmingen, Germany) and 185 others (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


Declare that Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 of 17 April 2013 Amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2013 L 108, p. 1) is partially unlawful as it is based on a manifest error of assessment and violates Article 58(2) of REACH, the principle of proportionality and the right of defence (including the principles of sound administration and excellence of scientific advice);










—


Partially annul the Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 insofar as it does not contain in its Annex at row 16, fifth column, under the title ‘Exempted categories of use’, the following exemption: ‘use of chromium trioxide for production purposes in aqueous solution, thereby complying with an exposure value of maximum 5μg/m3 (or 0,005 mg/m3)’ or similar language aimed at exempting the ‘use of chromium trioxide in electroplating, etching processes, electropolishing and other surface treatment processes and technologies as well as mixing,’ or words to that effect from the scope of the contested act;










—


Order the defendant to amend Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 so as to comply with the Court’s judgment; and










—


Order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 is unlawful as it is based on a number of manifest errors of appraisal and must be annulled insofar as it does not contain an exemption from authorisation in respect of the use of chromium trioxide in the chromium plating industry.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 is based on an underlying assessment of occupational risk related to the use of chromium trioxide in chromium plating that is scientifically and legally flawed (manifest error of appraisal).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 infringes Article 58(2) of REACH and the principle of proportionality.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicants were not granted access to key documents that formed the basis of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 and therefore the defendant infringed the applicants’ rights of defence and principles of sound administration and excellence of scientific advice.