Case C-121/25 P: Appeal brought on 5 February 2025 by Evonik Operations GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2024 in Case T-449/22, Evonik Operations v Commission
Date: 2025-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: amorphous materials, classification, health risk, judicial review, labelling, nanotechnology, oxide, packaging, semi-metal, toxic substance








C_202501638EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1638


24.3.2025






Appeal brought on 5 February 2025 by Evonik Operations GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2024 in Case T-449/22, Evonik Operations v Commission


(Case C-121/25 P)

(C/2025/1638)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Evonik Operations GmbH (represented by: T. Delille and M. Escorneboueu, avocats)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the judgment under appeal;










—


alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the action for annulment; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law and misrepresented the appellant’s claims in relation to the incorrect and incomplete application of the classification criteria of the CLP Regulation (1). First of all, it erred in assessing the compliance of the contested classification with the general principle that any hazard supporting a classification must be the consequence of a substance’s intrinsic properties. Second of all, it did not exercise an adequate judicial review of the absence of consideration, by ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (‘RAC’), of the impact of specific testing conditions on the conclusions to derive from the studies supporting the contested classification. Third of all, it did not adequately review the absence of demonstration if the effects relied upon to support the classification were significant. Finally, it erred in assessing the compliance of the read-across relied upon by RAC with the specific provisions of the CLP Regulation.
Second, the General Court erred in law by failing to identify and to sanction the existence of breaches of essential requirements of the harmonised classification and labelling procedure, namely, the infringement of the deadline for adoption of the RAC Opinion and the consultation requirements set out under Article 37(4) of the CLP Regulation.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ 2008 L 353, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1638/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)