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 62011TN0368

Case T-368/11: Action brought on 8 July 2011 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group e.a./Commission

SL C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 28–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
08/07/2011
Date lodged:
08/07/2011
Author:
Opći sud
Form:
Pravosudna informacija
Authentic language:
engleski
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

24.9.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/28

Action brought on 8 July 2011 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group e.a./Commission

(Case T-368/11)

2011/C 282/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group (Brussels, Belgium), SNF SAS (Andrezieux Boutheon, France) and Travetanche Injection SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Annul the Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 of 14 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Acrylamide) (OJ 2011 L 101, p. 12);

—

Order the Commission to pay the cost and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that the contested Regulation contains manifest errors of appraisal in so far as the European Commission, firstly, relied on information that is not relevant, under the applicable legal framework, for the exposure of human beings and the environment in the EU, and, secondly, failed to identify risks resulting from acrylamide grouting, as per relevant applicable requirements, relying instead on information concerning the use of a different substance; as a result, the adoption of the said Regulation does not meet the conditions imposed by the relevant legal provisions;

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that the contested Regulation infringes the principle of proportionality;

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

that the contested Regulation is inadequately reasoned, contrary to Article 296 TFEU.
Top