Action brought on 28 November 2023 – Nouryon Functional Chemicals and Others v ECHA

(Case T-1122/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nouryon Functional Chemicals BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Arkema GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany), Pergan Hilfsstoffe für industrielle Prozesse GmbH (Bocholt, Germany), United Initiators GmbH (Pullach im Isartal, Germany) (represented by: R. Cana and Z. Romata, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

annul the Decision of 19 September 2023 of the European Chemicals Agency, issued by the Agency’s Board of Appeal in Case A-009-2022 insofar as it requires the applicants to submit information on an extended one generation reproductive toxicity study under column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX of REACH and cohorts 2A and 2B under column 2 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX of REACH.; and

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law by misinterpreting Column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX of REACH, and a manifest error of assessment by misapplying Column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX of REACH, to require the Applicants to submit information on an extended one generation reproductive toxicity study (“EOGRTS”) with a basic study design.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Agency breached the principle of proportionality and Article 25 of REACH by requiring the applicants to submit information on an EOGRTS with a basic study design.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed manifest errors of assessment, failed to take all available and relevant information into account, and breached the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, by requiring the applicants to submit information on an EOGRTS with a basic study design.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Agency breached the second paragraph of Column 2 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX of REACH and the principle of proportionality by failing to assess in the Contested Decision whether requiring Cohorts 2A and 2B as part of the EOGRTS is proportionate.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed manifest errors of assessment and breached the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations by requiring Cohorts 2A and 2B as part of the EOGRTS.

____________