Order of the General Court of 7 September 2010 - Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta and Umicore v Commission
(Actions for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Classification, packaging and labelling of certain nickel carbonate compounds as dangerous substances - Directive 2008/58/EC - Directive 67/548/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Amendment of form of order sought - Temporal application of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta Oy (Espoo, Finland) and Umicore SA/NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and D. Kukovec, Agents)
Intervener in support of the applicants: Nickel Institute (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer, D. Anderson QC, S. Kinsella and H. Pearson, Solicitors)
Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh, Agent)
Re:
Application for the partial annulment of 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 (OJ 2008 L 246, p. 1) and of 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 (OJ 2009 L 235, p. 1), in so far as they amend the classification of certain nickel carbonate compounds
Operative part of the order
The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta Oy and Umicore SA/NV are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission.
The Kingdom of Denmark and the Nickel Institute are to bear their own costs.
____________1 - OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.