CELEX: 62015CN0651
Language: en
Date: 2015-12-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-651/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2015 by Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO), Adolf Krämer GmbH & Co. KG, AgO Argentum GmbH, and other parties against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2015 in Case T-360/13: Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV e.a. v European Commission

29.2.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 78/4
            
         Appeal brought on 4 December 2015 by Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO), Adolf Krämer GmbH & Co. KG, AgO Argentum GmbH, and other parties against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2015 in Case T-360/13: Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV e.a. v European Commission
   (Case C-651/15 P)
   (2016/C 078/05)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO), Adolf Krämer GmbH & Co. KG, AgO Argentum GmbH, and other parties (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat, J. Beck, solicitor)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Assogalvanica, Ecometal, Comité européen des traitements de surfaces (CETS), and other parties
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellants claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Set aside the General Court's Judgment in Case T-360/13;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Rule on the substance of the Appellant's Application for Annulment or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for Annulment.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the appeal, the Appellant put forward the following arguments:
   First ground of appeal — The General Court made an error in law when holding that Directive 98/24 (1) and Directive 2004/37 (2) are not specific EU legislation within the meaning of Article 58(2) REACH (3) that impose minimum requirements that properly control the risk to human health of the use of chromium trioxide in the surface coating and galvanising industries:
   The General Court's reasoning interprets Article 58(2) REACH in a manner that goes beyond the clear wording and purpose of that provision, as well as the way in which Directive 98/24 and Directive 2004/37 must be interpreted. In sum, the General Court committed an error in law in (i) referring to the exemption under Article 58(2) REACH as one applying to ‘substances’ as opposed to ‘uses’, (ii) separating the three-fold test of Article 58(2) and failing to assess in substance the third part of the test (‘proper control of risks’), and (iii) holding that Directives 98/24 and 2004/37 do not impose minimum requirements to control the risk related to the use of chromium trioxide in the surface coating and galvanising industries, i.e., in particular, by referring to the absence of occupational exposure limit values.
   Second ground of appeal — The Contested Judgment's findings concerning the Commission's discretion are erroneous:
   If the first ground of appeal is upheld, the General Court's finding that the Commission properly exercised its discretion when deciding whether or not to grant the exemption under Article 58(2) REACH is erroneous.
   Third ground of appeal — Failure to properly assess the first plea in law and the second part of the fourth plea in law:
   If the first ground of appeal is upheld, the reasoning in paragraphs 68-69 and 84-85 of the Contested Judgment falls away, and both the first plea and second part of the fourth plea in law before the General Court must be reassessed.
   
      (1)  Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
   
      OJ L 131, p. 11
   
   
      (2)  Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work (Sixth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC)
   
      OJ L 158, p. 50
   
   
      (3)  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 L 396, p. 1