This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021CN0828
Case C-828/21 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2021 by European Union Copper Task Force against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2021 in Case T-153/19, European Union Copper Task Force v Commission
Case C-828/21 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2021 by European Union Copper Task Force against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2021 in Case T-153/19, European Union Copper Task Force v Commission
Case C-828/21 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2021 by European Union Copper Task Force against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2021 in Case T-153/19, European Union Copper Task Force v Commission
OJ C 73, 14.2.2022, 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)
OJ C 73, 14.2.2022, p. 9–9
(GA)
|
14.2.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 73/31 |
Appeal brought on 22 December 2021 by European Union Copper Task Force against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2021 in Case T-153/19, European Union Copper Task Force v Commission
(Case C-828/21 P)
(2022/C 73/35)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: European Union Copper Task Force (represented by: I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and C. Vila Gisbert, abogadas)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the judgment under appeal; |
|
— |
issue a judgment on the substance of the action for annulment or, subsidiary, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; |
|
— |
order the European Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.
The General Court erred in law in relation to the scope of its judicial review and has breached the appellant’s right to an effective judicial protection.
The General Court infringed the principle of non-arbitrariness by failing to require a harmonized approach in the scope of application of PBT (persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity) criteria.
The General Court infringed the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality.
The General Court breached the rules of procedure by dismissing the appellant’s request to appoint an expert.