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 62020TN0160

    Case T-160/20: Action brought on 27 March 2020 — 3M Belgium v ECHA

    OJ C 201, 15.6.2020, p. 31–31 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    15.6.2020   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 201/31

    Action brought on 27 March 2020 — 3M Belgium v ECHA

    (Case T-160/20)

    (2020/C 201/43)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: 3M Belgium (Diegem, Belgium) (represented by: J.-P. Montfort and T. Delille, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul ECHA Decision of 16 January 2020 (ECHA/01/2020) regarding the ‘Inclusion of substances of very high concern in the Candidate List for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV’ of the REACH Regulation (1), as regards the listing of ‘Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (“PFBS”) and its salts’;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the Article 57(f) of the REACH Regulation requirements and that the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment, since it has not demonstrated that the Substance is causing probable serious effects to human health and the environment.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty, including that of foreseeability, given that the applicant was not placed in a position to identify or ascertain in any manner the definition, criteria or factors used by ECHA to support its decision.

    (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) 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, OJ L 396, 2006, p. 1

    Top