CELEX: 62018TN0226
Language: en
Date: 2018-04-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-226/18: Action brought on 2 April 2018 — Global Silicones Council and Others v Commission

201805250581897292018/C 200/572262018TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180402444521Case T-226/18: Action brought on 2 April 2018 — Global Silicones Council and Others v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4410120180402EN0057441452Action brought on 2 April 2018 — Global Silicones Council and Others v Commission
   (Case T-226/18)2018/C 200/57Language of the case: English
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Global Silicones Council (Washington, United States), Wacker Chemie AG (Munich, Germany), Momentive Performance Materials GmbH (Leverkusen, Germany), Shin-Etsu Silicones Europea BV (Almere, Netherlands), Elkem Silicones France SAS (Lyon, France) (represented by: M. Navin-Jones, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            Annul the Contested Act under Article 263 TFEU;
         
      
            —
         
         
            Declare that Annex XIII of the REACH Regulation, and/or relevant provisions of this Annex (in particular, Sections 1.1.2 and/or 1.2.2), are illegal and inapplicable in the case at hand, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, insofar as they prevent or distort a valid assessment and/or conclusion on the properties of D4 and D5;
         
      
            —
         
         
            In the event that: (a) the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) Member State Committee's Opinion of Apri12015; (b) the ECHA Committee for Risk Assessment's Opinion of March 2016; (c) the ECHA Socio-Economic Assessment Committee Opinion of June 2016; (d) the ECHA PBT Expert Group conclusions / decisions of November 2012; and/or (e) relevant ECHA Guidance — are not regarded as preparatory acts leading to the adoption of the Contested Act — to declare those acts as illegal and inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU;
         
      
            —
         
         
            Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants regarding these proceedings; and
         
      
            —
         
         
            Take any other measure as justice may require.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on eleven pleas in law.
   
            1.
         
         
            First plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, manifest errors of assessment, breach of the principle of legal certainty, arbitrary decision-making, and failure to state reasons — regarding the risk assessment.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, manifest errors of assessment, breach of the principle of legal certainty, and arbitrary decision-making — regarding the hazard assessment. This includes an Article 277 TFEU plea of illegality regarding the relevant Annex XIII REACH provisions and/or previous acts and measures.
         
      
            3.
         
         
            Third plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, breach of the principle of legal certainty, arbitrary decision-making, and lack of adequate statement of reasons — regarding the hazard assessment, in particular the weight-of-evidence determination. This includes an Article 277 TFEU plea of illegality regarding the relevant Annex XIII REACH provisions and/or previous acts and measures.
         
      
            4.
         
         
            Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of legal certainty, breach of the principle of good administration, lack of statement of reasons — regarding the hazard and risk assessment, in particular the weight-of-evidence determination.
         
      
            5.
         
         
            Fifth plea in law, alleging denial of the rights of defence, including the right to be heard; lack of adequate statement of reasons; due process — regarding the hazard and risk assessment, in particular the weight-of-evidence determination.
         
      
            6.
         
         
            Sixth plea in law, alleging an act manifestly exceeding the limits of discretionary powers; manifest error in the exercise in the exercise of discretionary powers and breach of the institutional balance of powers — regarding the hazard and risk assessment.
         
      
            7.
         
         
            Seventh plea in law, alleging illegality, manifest errors of law and fact, manifest errors in the exercise of discretionary powers, manifest exceedance of the limits of discretionary powers, breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, lack of statement of reasons — regarding the hazard and risk assessment, and the manifest errors of appreciation of the relevant facts and of the relevant provisions in law.
         
      
            8.
         
         
            Eighth plea in law, alleging breaches of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation, lack of adequate statement of reasons, manifest errors of fact and law — regarding the adoption, application, meaning, and scope, of the REACH Restriction.
         
      
            9.
         
         
            Ninth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality — regarding the application and scope of the REACH Restriction.
         
      
            10.
         
         
            Tenth plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements, illegality, manifest errors in the exercise of discretionary powers, manifest errors in fact and law, breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, breach of the principle of good administration, lack of statement of reasons — before the adoption of the REACH Restriction.
         
      
            11.
         
         
            Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the relevant provisions of Annex XIII REACH and other relevant previous acts and measures, which prevent and/or distort a valid assessment and/or conclusion of the properties of D4 and D5, are inapplicable according to Article 277 TFEU.