{"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-2026-11-03","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:96c5d4","proof":"sha256:36463b45694f669c6ad7f2b70542772afa046454043b3732110fbce1111acd37","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","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"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","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","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","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"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_44","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"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76"],"kind":"costs"}],"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 Ot …","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 …","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 Counc …","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 pur …","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 ‘ …","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’), …","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 i …","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 …","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 …","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 …","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 s …","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 sys …","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 …","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 …","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 …","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 c …","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 res …","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 …","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 …","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 t …","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 consti …","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 …","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 …","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 reproduc …","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 i …","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 …","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 Cour …","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 …","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 t …","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 sec …","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_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:eu:c-34-26-p","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":11,"word_count":4892,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:36463b45694f669c6ad7f2b70542772afa046454043b3732110fbce1111acd37","version":"legal-2026-11-03","expires":"2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-03+legal-2026-11-03+2026-11-03T08:46:54","content_hash":"sha256:36463b45694f669c6ad7f2b70542772afa046454043b3732110fbce1111acd37","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T10:57:17.367Z","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","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-34-26-p"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-34-26-p"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-34-26-p"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"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","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-34-26-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-b8a24e88c40d3c3fbcd00410f4ca5494","response_hash":"sha256:36463b45694f669c6ad7f2b70542772afa046454043b3732110fbce1111acd37"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-03T09:57:17.834Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-34-26-p&view=full","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":7008}}