174The appellant submits, first, that the General Court disregarded the wording of that provision, which is unambiguous and, in paragraph 234 of the judgment under appeal, contrary to the judgments of 19 June 1980, Roudolff (803/79, EU:C:1980:166, paragraph 7), and of 6 September 2018, Czech Republic v Commission (C‑4/17 P, EU:C:2018:678, paragraph 45), based its interpretation of that provision on the conduct of the CLH procedure, as that procedure is set out in Article 37 of the CLP Regulation. According to a combined reading of Article 37 of that regulation with recital 52 thereof, Article 37 concerns only the conditions relating to the drafting of the RAC Opinion and does not refer to the proposal for harmonised classification and labelling.