CELEX: 62010CN0015
Language: en
Date: 2010-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-15/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 11 January 2010 — Etimine SA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

13.3.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 63/39
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 11 January 2010 — Etimine SA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-15/10)
   2010/C 63/62
   Language of the case: English
   
      Referring court
   
   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Etimine SA
   
      Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Are the challenged borate classifications in Commission Directive 2008/58 (1) (the 3oth ATP) and/or Commission Regulation 790/2009 (2) (‘the 1st ATP’) invalid on one of more of the following grounds:
               
                           (i)
                        
                        
                           The classifications were included in the 30th ATP in breach of essential procedural requirements?
                        
                     
                           (ii)
                        
                        
                           The classifications were included in the 30th ATP in breach of Directive 67/548 (3) (‘the DSD’) and/or as a result of manifest errors of assessment, in that:
                           
                                       (a)
                                    
                                    
                                       The Commission did not apply or failed properly to apply the ‘normal handling and use’ principle contained in Annex VI to the DSD?
                                    
                                 
                                       (b)
                                    
                                    
                                       There was an unlawful application of risk assessment criteria?
                                    
                                 
                                       (c)
                                    
                                    
                                       The Commission failed to apply or misapplied the ‘appropriateness’ criterion in breach of point 4.2.3.3 of Annex VI to the DSD?
                                    
                                 
                                       (d)
                                    
                                    
                                       The Commission failed to have proper regard to the need for epidemiological/human data? and/or
                                    
                                 
                                       (e)
                                    
                                    
                                       The Commission unlawfully extrapolated data relating to one of the borate substances for the purposes of classifying the other borate substances and/or gave inadequate reasoning for that extrapolation contrary to Article 253 EC?
                                    
                                 
                     
                           (iii)
                        
                        
                           The classifications were included in the 30th ATP in breach of the fundamental Community law principle of proportionality?
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Are the challenged borate classifications in the 1st ATP invalid, in that:
               
                           (i)
                        
                        
                           The 1st ATP was wrongly adopted using the procedure set out in Article 53 as its legal basis?
                        
                     
                           (ii)
                        
                        
                           The criteria for a new harmonised classification under Annex I to Regulation (EC) 1272/2008 (4) (‘the CLP Regulation’) were not applied, and instead Annex VII to the CLP Regulation was wrongly applied?
                        
                     
         
      (1)  Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (Text with EEA relevance)
   OJ L 246, p. 1
   
      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (Text with EEA relevance)
   OJ L 235, p. 1
   
      (3)  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 196, p. 1
   
      (4)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (Text with EEA relevance)
   
      OJ L 353, 31.12.2008, p. 1