Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 12 July 2002 by SNF S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-213/02)

    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 12 July 2002 by SNF S.A., represented by Koen Van Maldegem and Claudio Mereu at McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP in Brussels, Belgium

The applicant claims that the Court should:

- order the partial annulment of the Twenty-Sixth Commission Directive 2002/34/EC of 15 April 2002 adapting to technical progress Annexes II, III and VII to Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products¹, so as to remove polyacrylamides from the measure;

- order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of the above-mentioned Directive due to the fact that the Commission has placed restrictions on the use of the applicant's products, polyacrylamides, as ingredients in cosmetic products. The applicant submits that in doing so, the Commission has disregarded several procedural rules set forth in Council Directive 76/768/EEC², as last amended by Commission Directive 2000/41/EC³, which the contested Directive purports to implement.

It alleges that the procedural safeguards set out in the Cosmetics Directive and in the Commission Decision establishing the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non Food Products intended for Consumers⁴ have been violated. By not adequately informing the applicant of the ongoing deliberations and the status of the Committee's opinion on acrylamide, by disrespecting procedural safeguards aimed at preserving the impartiality of the decision-making, by using scientific standards that are at odds with prevailing EU decisions, by manifestly misinterpreting the data submitted by the applicant and by not adequately allowing the applicant to state its case and express its view on studies co-authored by it, the Commission has violated the applicant's rights of defence in a way which affects the validity of the contested Directive. Furthermore, the defendant omitted to notify the applicant of the Directive, so that the legislative process is affected by a procedural deficiency which necessarily affects its validity.

The applicant submits that the contested Directive improperly includes polyacrylamides in Annex III to the Cosmetics Directive based on a calculation of cancer potency which is at odds with the more specific and prevailing review of acrylamide under the EU chemicals legislation. The contested Directive also infringes a series of well established principles of Community law, e.g. the duty to state reasons, the principle of proportionality, the principle of uniform application of Community law and the principle of equal treatment. Finally, the Commission did not consider all interests at stake and ignored the recent scientific findings.

____________

¹ - OJ L 102, p. 19.

² - Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ L 262, p. 169).

³ - Commission Directive 2000/41/EC of 19 June 2000 postponing for a second time the date after which animal tests are prohibited for ingredients or combinations of ingredients of cosmetic products (OJ L 145, p 25).

⁴ - Commission Decision 97/579/EC of 23 July 1997 setting up Scientific Committees in the field of consumer health and food safety (OJ L 237, p. 18).