Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS, Travetanche Injection SPRL against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2013 in Case T-368/11: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS, Travetanche Injection SPRL v European Commission

(Case C-199/13 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS and Travetanche Injection SPRL (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat, R. Cana, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-368/11; and

annul the Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 (the "Contested Regulation") 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)²; or

alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant's Application for annulment; and

order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for annulment in respect of the Contested Regulation, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the Appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the facts and of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellants' situation. That resulted in the General Court making a number of errors in law; in particular it:

misinterpreted Regulation 1488/94 when it concluded that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment by not taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances;

misinterpreted Regulation 1488/94 when it concluded that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment in relation to the evaluation of the exposure data taken into account;

erred in law and misinterpreted REACH when it concluded that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment by adopting the Contested Regulation on the basis of information related to a different product than the product subjected to restrictions by the Contested Regulation;

erred in law in holding that the Commission did not infringe the principle of proportionality;

erred in law in holding that the Commission did not infringe its obligation to state reasons; and

misinterpreted the Contested Regulation in finding that it also covers NMA grouts containing acrylamide.

For these reasons the Appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-368/11 should be set aside and the Contested Regulation should be annulled.

____________

¹ - OJ L 101, p. 12

² - Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 of 28 June 1994 laying down the principles for the assessment of risks to man and the environment of existing substances in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93, OJ L 161, p. 3