{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-34-26-p", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-34-26-p)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-04", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:d79eaf", "proof": "sha256:93f047e16517496a47fdc9d778ef059f85472e40bd348c8a72abe87be9f52285", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "eu:c-34-26-p", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "sections": [ { "title": "ORDER OF THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "23 September 2026 ( * )", "paragraphs": [ "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19" ] }, { "title": "Order", "paragraphs": [ "para_21" ] }, { "title": "The request that the appeal be allowed to proceed", "paragraphs": [ "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26" ] }, { "title": "Arguments of the appellants", "paragraphs": [ "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43" ] }, { "title": "Findings of the Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64" ] }, { "title": "Costs", "paragraphs": [ "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71" ] }, { "title": "A. Calot Escobar", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "T. von Danwitz", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Registrar", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "President of the Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed", "paragraphs": [ "para_76" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "ORDER OF THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed)", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "23 September 2026 ( * )", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "( Appeal – Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) – European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed )", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "In Case C‑34/26 P,", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 28 January 2026,", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "Nouryon Functional Chemicals BV, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands),", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Arkema GmbH, established in Düsseldorf (Germany),", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "Pergan Hilfsstoffe für industrielle Prozesse GmbH, established in Bocholt (Germany),", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "United Initiators GmbH, established in Pullach im Isartal (Germany),", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "represented by R. Cana and Z. Romata, avocats,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "appellants,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "the other party to the proceedings being:", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "European Chemicals Agency (ECHA),", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "defendant at first instance,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed),", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "composed of T. von Danwitz, Vice-President of the Court, O. Spineanu-Matei and N. Piçarra (Rapporteur), Judges,", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "having regard to the proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, T. Ćapeta,", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "makes the following", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Order", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "1         By their appeal, Nouryon Functional Chemicals BV, Arkema GmbH, Pergan Hilfsstoffe für industrielle Prozesse GmbH and United Initiators GmbH ask the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 November 2025, Nouryon Functional Chemicals and Others v ECHA (T‑1122/23, ‘the judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2025:1041), by which the General Court annulled in part Decision A-009-2022 of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 19 September 2023, by which the Board of Appeal dismissed in part their appeal brought against the decision of ECHA of 8 June 2022 on the compliance check of the registration dossier for the substance di-tert-butyl 1,1,4,4-tetramethyltetramethylene diperoxide.", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "The request that the appeal be allowed to proceed", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "2         Under point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, an appeal brought against a decision of the General Court concerning a decision of an independent board of appeal of ECHA is not to proceed unless the Court of Justice first decides that it should be allowed to do so.", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "3         In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 58a of that statute, an appeal is to be allowed to proceed, wholly or in part, in accordance with the detailed rules set out in the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where it raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "4         Under Article 170a(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, in the situations referred to in the first paragraph of Article 58a of that statute, the appellant is to annex to the appeal a request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, setting out the issue raised by the appeal that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law and containing all the information necessary to enable the Court of Justice to rule on that request.", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "5         In accordance with Article 170b(1) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the latter is to rule as soon as possible on the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, in the form of a reasoned order.", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Arguments of the appellants", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "6         In support of their request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, the appellants submit that the six grounds of that appeal raise issues that are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "7         By the first of the two parts of the first ground of appeal, the appellants complain that, in paragraphs 45 to 48 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court misinterpreted column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3; ‘the REACH Regulation’). That provision requires the registrant of a chemical substance to provide an extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study (‘EOGRTS’), if the available toxicity studies indicate adverse effects or reveal other concerns in relation with reproductive toxicity.", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "8         The appellants submit that the General Court, contrary to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice according to which, for the purposes of interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part, interpreted column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX as meaning that an EOGRTS may be required on the basis of ‘other concerns in relation with reproductive toxicity’, even in the absence, in the available toxicity studies, of any indication of ‘adverse effects on reproductive organs or tissues’. According to the interpretation of that provision in the light of its background and context, the provision of an EOGRTS can be required on the basis of ‘other concerns’ only if the available studies indicate the existence of such ‘adverse effects’.", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "9         The first part of the first ground of appeal raises, in the appellants’ view, an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law, in so far as the General Court’s interpretation sets a precedent for future cases without there being any certainty ‘as to what is the standard by which the [EOGRTS] is needed’. Moreover, that interpretation undermines the fundamental principle that all courts within the European Union must apply EU law as adopted by the EU legislature and exercise their power within the limits defined by that legislature.", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "10       By the second part of the first ground of appeal, the appellants complain that the General Court infringed their right to be heard and their right to effective judicial protection, which are guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), by failing to examine the arguments relied on in support of their interpretation of column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX, including, in particular, the argument alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty, if the concept of ‘concern’ set out therein was interpreted as corresponding to a ‘subjective concern of ECHA’.", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "11       That part raises, in their view, an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law, in so far as the judgment under appeal sets ‘a precedent for other cases in which [ECHA] would apply the same standard of discretion and its actions would not be in the scope of judicial remedies’. In those circumstances, the consistent implementation of EU animal welfare obligations would be undermined and the legal safeguards intended to ensure that animal testing is carried out only if there is no alternative solution would be weakened if ECHA and the European Commission were free to impose animal testing requirements without having to state reasons for them.", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "12       By their second ground of appeal, the appellants complain that the General Court failed to examine, in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the judgment under appeal, the plea alleging that ECHA made a manifest error of assessment in finding that sperm is neither a reproductive organ nor a reproductive tissue, within the meaning of column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX to the REACH Regulation. By rejecting that plea as ineffective without having taken into consideration the appellants’ arguments, the General Court infringed their right to be heard and acted in breach of the principle of effective judicial protection, both of which are guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter.", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "13       The second ground of appeal raises, in the appellants’ view, an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law, in that the judgment under appeal ‘sets a precedent for other cases in which [ECHA] would apply the same standard of discretion, and its actions would not be in the scope of judicial remedies’, as well as for decisions of other EU agencies that are subject to a review of legality by the EU Courts.", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "14       By their third ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court, in paragraphs 65 to 68 of the judgment under appeal, in addition to misinterpreting column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX to the REACH Regulation, misapplied the principle of proportionality by holding that ECHA was not required to examine whether an EOGRTS was necessary and whether it was the most appropriate instrument to address the ‘other concerns’ alleged under that provision. In support of that conclusion, the General Court incorrectly relied on the judgments of 29 March 2023, Nouryon Industrial Chemicals and Others v Commission (T‑868/19, EU:T:2023:168), and of 28 June 2023, Polynt v ECHA (T‑207/21, EU:T:2023:361), since those judgments concern requirements under Annex X to the REACH Regulation, and not under Annex IX to that regulation, the latter annex being at issue in the present case.", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "15       The third ground of appeal raises, in the appellants’ view, an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law, in that, first, ‘it concerns the limits of discretion applied by ECHA in any other case under [column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX to the REACH Regulation]’ and, second, the General Court misapplied the judgment of 29 March 2023, Nouryon Industrial Chemicals and Others v Commission (T‑868/19, EU:T:2023:168), to the detriment of the uniform application of the principle of proportionality.", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "16       By their fourth ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court, in paragraphs 81 and 82 of the judgment under appeal, incorrectly held that their argument relating to the conclusions of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) TG 408 study was based solely on documents annexed to the application for annulment, without taking account of the explicit arguments set out in several paragraphs of that application. The General Court thus misapplied the principle that annexes have an ‘instrumental function’. In addition, by failing to examine those explicit arguments of the appellants, the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons and the appellants’ right to effective judicial protection, provided for in Article 47 of the Charter.", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "17       The fourth ground of appeal raises, in the appellants’ view, an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law, relating to the consistency and predictability of the procedural requirements for the submission of evidence within the EU judicial system. By treating a plea clearly set out in the application for annulment as if it were absent, on the sole ground that details in support of that plea were set out in the annexes to that application, the judgment under appeal creates legal uncertainty for litigants as to what constitutes a properly structured plea, to the detriment of judicial protection in cases involving technical and scientific assessments by EU agencies in which the annexed evidence is often indispensable.", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "18       By their fifth ground of appeal, the appellants submit that, in paragraphs 92 and 93 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court, as a result of its misinterpretation of column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX to the REACH Regulation, erred in law by rejecting their arguments relating to the OECD TG 407 study as being ‘general and unsubstantiated assertions’, whereas detailed arguments, supported by evidence, were clearly set out in the application for annulment. In so doing, it misinterpreted a decisive plea and failed to state adequate reasons for its decision, in breach of its obligation to examine arguments capable of having a bearing on the outcome of the case.", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "19       The fifth ground of appeal raises, in the appellants’ view, an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law, in so far as the errors allegedly made by the General Court risk creating uncertainty as to the conditions required to trigger judicial review of scientific assessments made by EU agencies. That, the appellants argue, undermines the uniform application of procedural and evidential principles within the EU judicial system.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "20       By their sixth ground of appeal, the appellants complain that the General Court erred in law by ordering, in paragraph 150 of the judgment under appeal, that the parties bear their own costs, whereas the partial annulment of Decision A-009-2022 of the Board of Appeal of ECHA of 19 September 2023 justifies, in accordance with Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, that ECHA be ordered to pay a greater part, or even all, of the costs, in view of the significant workload that the appellants have had to bear in order to demonstrate the error made by that agency.", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "21       The sixth ground of appeal raises, in the appellants’ view, an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law, in so far as an ECHA decision has, for the first time, been annulled in part. It is therefore important, they argue, that the case-law of the Court of Justice develops in a consistent manner in that regard.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "22       As a preliminary point, it must be recalled that it is for the appellant to demonstrate that the issues raised by its appeal are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law (orders of 10 December 2021, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann , C‑382/21 P, EU:C:2021:1050, paragraph 20, and of 12 June 2025, Polynt v ECHA , C‑804/24 P, EU:C:2025:450, paragraph 9).", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "23       Furthermore, as is apparent from the third paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, read together with Article 170a(1) and Article 170b(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the request that an appeal be allowed to proceed must contain all the information necessary to enable the Court to give a ruling on whether the appeal should be allowed to proceed and to specify, where the appeal is allowed to proceed in part, the pleas in law or parts of the appeal to which the response must relate. Given that the objective of the mechanism provided for in Article 58a of that statute whereby the Court determines whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed is to restrict review by the Court to issues that are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law, only grounds of appeal that raise such issues and that are established by the appellant are to be examined by the Court in an appeal (orders of 10 December 2021, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann , C‑382/21 P, EU:C:2021:1050, paragraph 21, and of 12 June 2025, Polynt v ECHA , C‑804/24 P, EU:C:2025:450, paragraph 10).", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "24       Accordingly, a request that an appeal be allowed to proceed must, in any event, set out clearly and in detail the grounds on which the appeal is based, identify with equal clarity and detail the issue of law raised by each ground of appeal, specify whether that issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law and set out the specific reasons why that issue is significant according to that criterion. As regards, in particular, the grounds of appeal, the request that an appeal be allowed to proceed must specify the provision of EU law or the case-law that has been infringed by the judgment or order under appeal, explain succinctly the nature of the error of law allegedly committed by the General Court, and indicate to what extent that error had an effect on the outcome of the judgment or order under appeal. Where the error of law relied on results from an infringement of the case-law, the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed must explain, in a succinct but clear and precise manner, first, where the alleged contradiction lies, by identifying the paragraphs of the judgment or order under appeal which the appellant is calling into question as well as those of the ruling of the Court of Justice or the General Court alleged to have been infringed, and, second, the concrete reasons why such a contradiction raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law (orders of 10 December 2021, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann , C‑382/21 P, EU:C:2021:1050, paragraph 22, and of 12 June 2025, Polynt v ECHA , C‑804/24 P, EU:C:2025:450, paragraph 11).", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "25       A request that an appeal be allowed to proceed which does not contain the information mentioned in the preceding paragraph of the present order cannot, from the outset, be capable of demonstrating that the appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law that justifies the appeal being allowed to proceed (see, to that effect, orders of 24 October 2019, Porsche v EUIPO , C‑613/19 P, EU:C:2019:905, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited, and of 30 June 2026, Puma v EUIPO , C‑278/26 P, EU:C:2026:528, paragraph 13).", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "26       In the present case, as regards, in the first place, the line of argument set out in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the present order, namely that the General Court disregarded the case-law of the Court of Justice on the method of interpreting EU law, it should be noted, first, that, in paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court first of all recalled the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which, where the wording of a provision is unambiguous, an interpretation in the light of its legal context cannot have the result of depriving the clear and precise wording of that provision of all effectiveness. The General Court then held, in paragraph 48 of the judgment under appeal, that it is clear from the wording of column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX to the REACH Regulation that the identification of ‘other concerns regarding reproductive toxicity’, as a condition for requiring the registrant of a chemical substance to provide an EOGRTS, does not depend on the demonstration of the indication, in the available toxicity studies, of ‘adverse effects on reproductive organs or tissues’.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "27       Second, the applicants have not explained how the taking into account of the context and background of column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX could lead to the interpretation which they rely on. In that regard, they merely assert that the REACH Regulation, in its original version, referred to the indication of ‘adverse effects on reproductive organs or tissues’ and that it is clear from recital 10 of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/282 of 20 February 2015 amending Annexes VIII, IX and X to 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 the Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study (OJ 2015 L 50, p. 1), that the EU legislature intended that a request for an EOGRTS, provided for in Annex IX, be made only where there are adverse effects.", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "28       It follows that, by the first part of their first ground of appeal, the appellants complain, in essence, that the General Court did not uphold the interpretation which they proposed in respect of column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX to the REACH Regulation, which manifestly does not constitute a ground of appeal raising an issue of law that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law, within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice as interpreted by the case-law referred to in paragraph 24 of the present order.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "29       In the second place, as regards the appellants’ line of argument set out in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the present order, namely that the General Court did not examine certain arguments in support of their interpretation of column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX, in breach of their right to be heard and their right to effective judicial protection, it must be held that the appellants have in no way indicated, contrary to the requirements referred to in paragraph 24 of the present order, how the examination of those arguments should have led the General Court to uphold the interpretation which they proposed, so as to influence the outcome of the judgment under appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "30       In those circumstances, the appellants’ arguments alleging a breach of the fundamental principle that all courts within the European Union must apply EU law as adopted by the EU legislature and exercise their power within the limits defined by that legislature are merely general assertions which are entirely irrelevant for the purpose of demonstrating that that ground of appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "31       The same is true of the appellants’ argument that the error of interpretation allegedly made by the General Court gives rise to uncertainty as to the circumstances in which an EOGRTS may be required, in the light of the findings made in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the present order.", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "32       In the third place, as regards the line of argument set out in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the present order, namely that the General Court should have examined the alleged manifest error of assessment made by ECHA when the latter considered that sperm is not ‘a reproductive organ or a reproductive tissue’ within the meaning of column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX to the REACH Regulation, it must be noted, even if such a complaint could be based on paragraphs 37 and 38 of the judgment under appeal, that, by that line of argument, the appellants seek to call into question findings of fact, which cannot, in any event, raise an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law (see, to that effect, order of 14 March 2025, Eurosemillas v CPVO , C‑774/24 P, EU:C:2025:190, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "33       In the fourth place, as regards the line of argument set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the present order, namely that the General Court, by incorrectly relying on two of its earlier judgments, acted in breach of the principle of proportionality in conjunction with its allegedly incorrect interpretation of column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX to the REACH Regulation, it must be held that such a line of argument does not comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 24 of the present order. The appellants merely claim that the General Court misapplied the conclusions which it reached in one of those two previous judgments and that the third ground of appeal concerns the limits of ECHA’s discretion ‘in any other case’ covered by the relevant provision of the REACH Regulation, without setting out the specific reasons why such an error of law, even if established, raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "34       Furthermore, mere reliance on the authority that would be reflected in the Court of Justice’s decision in the present case, in particular with regard to cases to be brought in the future, is not sufficient, in itself, to demonstrate the existence of an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law (see, to that effect, order of 1 October 2025, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma v EUIPO , C‑44/25 P, EU:C:2025:740, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited). The person requesting that an appeal be allowed to proceed is required to demonstrate that significance by providing detailed information not only on the novelty of that issue, but also on the reasons why that issue is significant in relation to the relevant criteria, which the appellants have failed to establish in the present case (see, to that effect, order of 3 February 2025, Sophienwald v EUIPO , C‑578/24 P, EU:C:2025:74, paragraph 17).", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "35       In the fifth place, as regards the line of argument summarised in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the present order, relating to the conclusions of the OECD TG 408 study, it is sufficient to note that, by that line of argument, the appellants seek, in essence, to call into question the General Court’s finding of fact, in paragraph 81 of the judgment under appeal, namely that the argument directed against the decision of ECHA of 8 June 2022 was not set out in the application for annulment but was based on the reference to their comments on the draft decision of ECHA of 8 June 2022 annexed to that application, which cannot raise an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "36       Furthermore, in so far as the appellants complain that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons by failing to examine certain arguments that had been put forward, on the sole ground that details in support of those arguments were set out in the annexes to the application for annulment, it must be noted that, according to settled case-law, a line of argument seeking to demonstrate that the General Court failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons, even if it were well founded, is not capable, in principle, of raising an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law (see, to that effect, order of 14 March 2025, Eurosemillas v CPVO , C‑774/24 P, EU:C:2025:190, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "37       In the sixth place, as regards the line of argument set out in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the present order, namely that the General Court, as a result of its allegedly incorrect interpretation of column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX to the REACH Regulation, rejected their arguments seeking to demonstrate that the conclusions of an OECD study ‘do not indicate an adverse effect and cannot support the Annex IX trigger’, it is sufficient to note that that line of argument, as with that examined in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the present order, amounts to a complaint, in essence, that the General Court did not uphold their interpretation of column 1 of Section 8.7.3 of Annex IX that the provision of an EOGRTS may be required on the basis of ‘other concerns’ only if the available studies also indicate the existence of ‘adverse effects’.", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "38       Therefore, for the same reasons as those set out in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the present order, it must be held that the appellants have not demonstrated that the line of argument set out in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the present order raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "39       As regards, in the seventh place, the appellants’ line of argument, summarised in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the present order, it must be noted that the contention that the General Court, in the light of the circumstances of the case, should have relied on the power conferred on it by the second sentence of Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court so as to order ECHA to pay a proportion of their costs manifestly does not raise an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "40       In the light of all the foregoing reasons, it must be held that the appellants’ request that the appeal be allowed to proceed does not establish that the appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "41       It follows that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "42       Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to proceedings on appeal pursuant to Article 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order which closes the proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "43       Since the present order was adopted before the appeal was served on the other parties to the proceedings and, therefore, before those parties could have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that the appellants are to bear their own costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "On those grounds, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) hereby orders:", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "1.       The appeal is not allowed to proceed.", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "2.       Nouryon Functional Chemicals BV, Arkema GmbH, Pergan Hilfsstoffe für industrielle Prozesse GmbH and United Initiators GmbH shall bear their own costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "Luxembourg, 23 September 2026.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "A. Calot Escobar", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "T. von Danwitz", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "Registrar", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "President of the Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "*       Language of the case: English.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" } ], "word_count": 4892, "cites": [ "C-34/26", "T-1122/23", "T-868/19", "T-207/21", "C-382/21", "C-804/24", "C-613/19", "C-278/26", "C-774/24", "C-44/25", "C-578/24" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "485469cf181d6ff2034ac6ada6b7809e434b744eaacabba66fa84cc5a3d6f2b4", "source_url": "https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62026CO0034", "fetched_at": "2026-09-30T11:50:44.464+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-34-26-p", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-34-26-p", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-34-26-p", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-34-26-p", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "485469cf181d6ff2034ac6ada6b7809e434b744eaacabba66fa84cc5a3d6f2b4", "recomputed_sha256": "485469cf181d6ff2034ac6ada6b7809e434b744eaacabba66fa84cc5a3d6f2b4", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-04T08:22:07.185Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:93f047e16517496a47fdc9d778ef059f85472e40bd348c8a72abe87be9f52285", "version": "legal-2026-10-04", "expires": "2026-10-05T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-04+legal-2026-10-04+2026-10-04T07:22:25", "content_hash": "sha256:93f047e16517496a47fdc9d778ef059f85472e40bd348c8a72abe87be9f52285", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-04T09:22:07.796Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-34-26-p", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }