Judgment_paragraph 33 · Evonik Operations GmbH v European Commission (C-121/25 P)

33The first ground of appeal is divided into four parts. The first part of that ground of appeal alleges breach of the general principle, to which the General Court referred in the judgment of 23 November 2022, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission (T‑279/20, T‑283/20 and T‑288/20, ‘the judgment in CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission’, EU:T:2022:725, paragraph 136), according to which any hazard supporting a classification, within the meaning of the CLP Regulation, must be the consequence of the intrinsic properties of the substance under review. The second part of that ground of appeal alleges misrepresentation of the argument put forward at first instance by the appellant that the RAC had failed to consider the conditions of testing when drawing conclusions on the STOT RE properties of silanamine and, therefore, a lack of judicial review in that regard. The third part of that ground of appeal alleges that the General Court failed to examine whether the contested classification was based on significant health effects. The fourth part of that ground of appeal alleges errors made by the General Court in its examination of the merits of the reliance, in the RAC Opinion, on a read-across with an SAS that is sufficiently similar to silanamine (‘the read-across’).

Evonik Operations GmbH v European Commission (C-121/25 P)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version