—

order the partial annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1182 (1) of 19 May 2020 insofar as it concerns the substance dioctyltin dilaurate; [1] stannane, dioctyl-, bis(coco acyloxy) derivs [2]; and, as it amends Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (2) by inclusion of that substance together with the relevant classification and labelling elements in Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008; and,

—

order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses incurred in these proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation breaches Article 37(1) and (5) in connection with Part 2 of Annex VI of the Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, because available information on the substance contained in the REACH registration dossier was not considered. This constitutes a manifest error of assessment.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation violates Articles 5, 9, 36 and 37 in connection with Part 1 (Section 1.1.1.3) and Part 3 (Sections 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3) of Annex I of the Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, because the relevant available information was not properly investigated, assessed and considered according to sound scientific principles.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation violates Articles 5, 36 and 37 in connection with Part 1 (Section 1.1.1.3) and Part 3 (Sections 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.2.3) of Annex I of the Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, because the applied read-across was not performed on the grounds of a sound scientific basis and the Commission misjudged the weight of the available evidence.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of Article 36(1)(d) and Article 37(5) in connection with Section 3.7 of Part 3 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, because the Commission could not provide clear scientific evidence that the substance concerned fulfills the respective classification for reproductive toxicity (category 1B) and STOT RE1.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality, since the classification of the substance concerned is neither appropriate nor necessary. In particular, the applicant was denied the opportunity of exoneration.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the contested Regulation, the Commission breached Article 37(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 and violated the applicants’ right to good administration and the right of the applicant to be heard. In particular, the applicant has been denied an adequate opportunity to comment meaningfully on the RAC Opinion itself and to prove that the Opinion is incorrect from a scientific standpoint.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that, in adopting the contested Regulation without the prior conduct and documentation of an Impact Assessment, the Commission breached its commitments under the Interinstitutional Agreement on better-law-making.