Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62006CO0150

    Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2007.
    Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA and Cray Valley Iberica SA v Commission of the European Communities.
    Appeal - Directive 67/548/EEC - Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Breach of the right to an effective legal remedy - Action for damages - Appeal clearly unfounded.
    Case C-150/06 P.

    European Court Reports 2007 I-00039*

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2007:164

    Date of document:
    13/03/2007
    Date lodged:
    17/03/2006
    Author:
    Court of Justice
    Country or organisation from which the request originates:
    Spain, Netherlands, Belgium
    Form:
    Order
    Authentic language:
    English
    Type of procedure:
    Appeal - unfounded, Action for annulment, Action for damages
    Judge-Rapporteur:
    Malenovský
    Advocate General:
    Mazák
    Treaty:
    Treaty establishing the European Economic Community
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Instruments cited in case law:





    Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2007 – Arizona Chemical and Others v Commission

    (Case C‑150/06 P)

    Appeal – Directive 67/548/EEC – Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance – Action for annulment – Act not open to challenge – Breach of the right to an effective legal remedy – Action for damages – Appeal clearly unfounded

    1.                     Actions for annulment – Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 22-24)

    2.                     Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 40-41)

    3.                     Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Rules of procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 45-46)

    4.                     Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support its operative part – Invalid plea in law (see para. 47)

    Re:

    Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2005 in Case T-369/03 Arizona Chemical and Others v Commission , in which the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible an action for annulment of Commission Decision D(2003)430245 of 20 August 2003, rejecting the applicant’s request to withdraw rosin from the list of dangerous substances set out in Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234).

    Operative part

     

    The appeal is dismissed.

     

    Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA and Cray Valley Iberica SA shall bear the costs.

    Top