CELEX: 62011TN0368
Language: en
Date: 2011-07-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-368/11: Action brought on 8 July 2011 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group e.a./Commission

24.9.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 282/28
            
         Action brought on 8 July 2011 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group e.a./Commission
   (Case T-368/11)
   2011/C 282/58
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group (Brussels, Belgium), SNF SAS (Andrezieux Boutheon, France) and Travetanche Injection SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 of 14 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Acrylamide) (OJ 2011 L 101, p. 12);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the cost and expenses.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           that the contested Regulation contains manifest errors of appraisal in so far as the European Commission, firstly, relied on information that is not relevant, under the applicable legal framework, for the exposure of human beings and the environment in the EU, and, secondly, failed to identify risks resulting from acrylamide grouting, as per relevant applicable requirements, relying instead on information concerning the use of a different substance; as a result, the adoption of the said Regulation does not meet the conditions imposed by the relevant legal provisions;
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           that the contested Regulation infringes the principle of proportionality;
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           that the contested Regulation is inadequately reasoned, contrary to Article 296 TFEU.