Case C-323/15 P: Appeal brought on 30 June 2015 by Polynt SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-134/13: Polynt SpA and Sitre Srl v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dangerous substance, principle of proportionality, respiratory disease, rights of the defence








C_2015311EN.01002402.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/24





Appeal brought on 30 June 2015 by Polynt SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-134/13: Polynt SpA and Sitre Srl v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
(Case C-323/15 P)
(2015/C 311/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Polynt SpA (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Sitre Srl, New Japan Chemical, REACh ChemAdvice GmbH, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-134/13; and










—


Annul the contested decision or alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant’s 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 Appellant submits that, in dismissing its application for annulment of the Contested Decision, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the Appellant contends that the General Court committed a number of errors in its reasoning and interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellant’s situation. That resulted in the General Court making the following errors in law:






—


The General Court made contradictory and erroneous statements with respect to the need to have regard to risk assessment pursuant to Article 57(f) of REACH (1), leading to a misinterpretation of the same.










—


The General Court made contradictory statements and departed from established case law on the status and weight of guidance documents in interpreting what is meant by ‘equivalent level of concern’ under Article 57(f) of the same.










—


The General Court flawed reliance on Article 60(2) of REACH led to insufficient reasoning.










—


The General Court applied the wrong legal text in dismissing the arguments relating to worker and consumer exposure, thereby misapplying Article 57(f).




For these reasons the Appellant claims that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-134/13 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, Autorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing an 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, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC AND 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396 p. 1