Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 29 October 2003 by Arizona Chemical B.V., Eastman Belguim B.V.B.A., Resinall Europe B.V.B.A. and Cray Valley Iberica S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-369/03)

    Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 October 2003 by Arizona Chemical B.V., Almere, the Netherlands, Eastman Belguim B.V.B.A., Kallo, Belguim, Resinall Europe B.V.B.A., Brugge, Belguim and Cray Valley Iberica S.A., Madrid, Spain , represented by Claudio Mereu and Koen Van Maldegem, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

- Annul Commission Decision D(2003)430245 of 20 August 2003

-Declare that the rosin entry in Annex I of 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, is unlawful

-In the alternative, declare that the rosin Annex I entry is inapplicable to the Applicants under Article 241 EC Treaty;

-Compensate Applicants for damages suffered as a result of the adoption of the contested Decision, in the provisional amount of EUR 1; or, in the alternative declare the Commission liable for imminent damage foreseeable with sufficient certainty, even if the damage cannot be precisely assessed

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings;

                                

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Contested Decision in this case rejected the applicants request to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance listed in Annex I of 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 substances¹.

In support of their application the applicants submit that the Contested Decision is unlawful on the grounds that the classification of rosin was decided on the basis of test results relating to a different substance, namely oxidised rosin. They further submit that the classification in question is not supported by the conclusion of the scientific assessment conducted under Directive 67/548 and was decided on the wrong premise that rosin always produces oxidised rosin and that the latter causes skin sensitisation under normal handling and use. The applicants also contend that the Contested Decision is unlawful because it is based on the "precautionary principle", which does not apply to hazard-based decisions, that the Contested Decision violates the EC Treaty as it fails to consider new, state-of-the-art scientific evidence on oxidised rosin and that, finally, the Contested Decision also violates fundamental principles of Community law, more especially the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and proportionality.

____________

¹ - Official Journal P 196 , 16/08/1967 P. 1 - 98, English special edition: Series I Chapter 1967 P. 234