CELEX: C2006/074/37
Language: en
Date: 2006-03-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-369/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of  14 December 2005  — Arizona Chemical BV and Others v Commission (Directive 67/548/EEC — Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Action for damages — Limitation — Plea of illegality — Inadmissibility)

25.3.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 74/18
            
         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Arizona Chemical BV and Others v Commission
   (Case T-369/03) (1)
   
   (Directive 67/548/EEC - Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Action for damages - Limitation - Plea of illegality - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 74/37)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties:
   
      Applicants: Arizona Chemical BV (Huizen, Netherlands), Eastman Belgium BVBA (Kallo, Belgium), Resinall Europe BVBA (Bruges, Belgium), and Cray Valley Iberica, SA (Madrid) (represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, Agents)
   
      Interverners in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)
   Application for
   first, annulment of an act of the Commission rejecting the applicants' request for the withdrawal of rosin from the list of sensitising substances set out in Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234), and, second, for compensation for the damages suffered
   Operative part of the Order
   
               1.
            
            
               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the defendant.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The intervener shall bear its own costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.