Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62026TN0237

Case T-237/26: Action brought on 14 April 2026 – ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical e.a. v ECHA

OJ C, C/2026/3073, 15.6.2026, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/3073/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/3073/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

C series


C/2026/3073

15.6.2026

Action brought on 14 April 2026 – ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical e.a. v ECHA

(Case T-237/26)

(C/2026/3073)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical (Antwerp, Belgium), Shell Chemicals Europe BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Shell Nederland Raffinaderij BV (Rotterdam) (represented by: C. Mereu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul in its entirety ECHA Decision D(2025)7771-DC of 11 December 2025, identifying n-hexane (EC No. 203-777-6; CAS No. 110-54-3) as a substance of very high concern on the basis of specific target organ toxicity after repeated exposure (nervous system) pursuant to Article 57(f) – human health – of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (1);

—

order the removal of n-hexane from the Candidate List published on 4 February 2026; and

—

order ECHA to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicants’ legal costs, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

—

First branch: the conclusions on irreversibility are scientifically unsound and legally insufficient to meet Article 57(f) of REACH threshold;

—

Second branch: the finding of ‘societal concern’ is unsubstantiated and legally deficient;

—

Third branch: the derivation of Derived No-Effect Level (DNEL) and occupational exposure limit (OEL) confirms that risk assessment is feasible, precluding Article 57(f) of REACH identification;

—

Fourth branch: improper reliance on co-exposure scenarios and consumer use data.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality: the existence of adequate OELs and occupational risk management measures together with a detailed Chemical Safety Report render the substance of very high concern (SVHC) listing disproportionate.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty: absence of precedent for reversible, occupational neurotoxicity under Article 57(f) of REACH.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1 of REACH and misuse of powers.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of essential procedural requirements: inadequate reasoning under Article 296 TFEU.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) N° 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p.°1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/3073/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)


Top