This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007CA0558
Case C-558/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) (United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Ltd, Hercules Inc. v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Chemicals — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) — Concept of monomer substances — Validity — Proportionality — Equal treatment)
Case C-558/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) (United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Ltd, Hercules Inc. v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Chemicals — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) — Concept of monomer substances — Validity — Proportionality — Equal treatment)
Case C-558/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) (United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Ltd, Hercules Inc. v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Chemicals — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) — Concept of monomer substances — Validity — Proportionality — Equal treatment)
OJ C 205, 29.8.2009, p. 6–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
29.8.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 205/6 |
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) (United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Ltd, Hercules Inc. v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Case C-558/07) (1)
(Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Chemicals - Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) - Concept of ‘monomer substances’ - Validity - Proportionality - Equal treatment)
2009/C 205/08
Language of the case: English
Referring court
High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division)
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: The Queen, on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Ltd, Hercules Inc.
Defendants: Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division — Interpretation and validity of Article 6(3) 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), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 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 — Concept of ‘monomer substances’
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
The concept of ‘monomer substances’ in Article 6(3) 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), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 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 relates only to reacted monomers which are integrated in polymers; |
|
2. |
Examination of the second question has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 6(3) of Regulation No 1907/2006. |