Case C-636/25 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2025 by Fritz Egger GmbH & Co. OG, Kronospan GmbH, Fundermax GmbH, KremsChem Austria, formerly Metadynea Austria GmbH, Pfleiderer Deutschland GmbH and Unilin BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2025 in Case T-163/23, Fritz Egger and others v ECHA
Date: 2025-09-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical product, chemicals legislation, dangerous substance, organic chemical, rights of the defence








C_202505946EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5946


17.11.2025






Appeal brought on 29 September 2025 by Fritz Egger GmbH & Co. OG, Kronospan GmbH, Fundermax GmbH, KremsChem Austria, formerly Metadynea Austria GmbH, Pfleiderer Deutschland GmbH and Unilin BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2025 in Case T-163/23, Fritz Egger and others v ECHA


(Case C-636/25 P)

(C/2025/5946)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Fritz Egger GmbH & Co. OG, Kronospan GmbH, Fundermax GmbH, KremsChem Austria, formerly Metadynea Austria GmbH, Pfleiderer Deutschland GmbH and Unilin BV (represented by: M. Ahlhaus, F. Niermeier, D. Strobl, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency, LAT Nitrogen Piesteritz GmbH, formerly Borealis Agrolinz Melamine Deutschland GmbH, Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Puławy S.A., OCI Nitrogen BV, Cornerstone Chemical Co., Sonae Arauco, SA, Fantoni SpA, Prefere Resins Holding GmbH, Frati Luigi SpA, Hans Schmid GmbH & Co. KG, Bakelite Synthetics UK Ltd, Gruppo Mauro Saviola Srl, Federal Republic of Germany, European Commission, Swiss Krono Tec AG and BASF SE

Form of order sought

The appellants claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


annul the decision D(2022)9120-DC of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 16 December 2022, in so far as that decision identifies melamine as a substance of very high concern for the purposes of Art. 57 REACH (1), or alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;










—


order ECHA to pay the costs incurred both in the present appeal proceedings and in the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


With the first ground for appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law when assessing the procedure set forth in Art. 59 REACH and the infringement of the right to submit comments conferred on the appellants by presuming that the dossier submitter is entitled to introduce new evidence only in connection with the procedure at level of the Member State Committee.










2.


With the second ground for appeal the appellants allege that the General Court wrongfully applied the principle of good administration.






(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 2006, L 396, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5946/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)