CELEX: 62011CA0625
Language: en
Date: 2013-09-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-625/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission (Appeal — European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Articles 57 and 59 — Substances subject to authorisation — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Inclusion on the candidate list of substances — Publication — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Date from which that time limit must be calculated in the case of an action brought against a decision published only on the internet — Legal certainty — Effective judicial protection)

23.11.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 344/16
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission
   (Case C-625/11 P) (1)
   
   (Appeal - European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) - Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Articles 57 and 59 - Substances subject to authorisation - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Inclusion on the candidate list of substances - Publication - Time-limit for instituting proceedings - Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Date from which that time limit must be calculated in the case of an action brought against a decision published only on the internet - Legal certainty - Effective judicial protection)
   2013/C 344/26
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS (represented by: R. Cana and K. Van Maldegem, avocats)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, advocaat), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and B. Koopman, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)
   
      Re:
   
   Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 September 2011 in Case T-268/10 PPG and SNF v ECHA, dismissing as inadmissible an action for annulment of the Decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 30 March 2010, identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) (CAS No 79 06 1) as a substance fulfilling the criteria referred to in Article 57 of 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), and including acrylamide in the list of substances identified with a view to future inclusion in Annex XIV to that regulation (list of substances subject to authorisation), in accordance with Article 59 thereof — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Act published only on the internet
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 September 2011 in Case T-268/10 PPG and SNF v ECHA;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Refers the present case back to the General Court of the European Union;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Reserves the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.