JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)

9 July 2025 ( * )

( REACH – Substances of very high concern – Establishment of a candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Decision identifying melamine as a substance meeting the criteria laid down for inclusion in the list – Obligation to state reasons – Right to be heard – Ultra vires – Article 57 of Regulation No 1907/2006 – Manifest error of assessment – Proportionality – Precautionary principle – Misuse of powers )

In Case T‑167/23,

LAT Nitrogen Piesteritz GmbH, formerly Borealis Agrolinz Melamine Deutschland GmbH, established in Lutherstadt Wittenberg (Germany),

Cornerstone Chemical Co., established in Metairie, Louisiana (United States),

represented by R. Cana, E. Mullier and Z. Romata, lawyers,

applicants,

supported by

Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Puławy S.A., established in Puławy (Poland),

OCI Nitrogen BV, established in Sittard‑Geleen (Netherlands),

Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd, established in Couva (Trinidad and Tobago),

represented by R. Cana, E. Mullier and Z. Romata, lawyers,

and by

Fritz Egger GmbH & Co. OG, established in St. Johann in Tirol (Austria), and the other interveners whose names are set out in the annex, ( 1 ) represented by D. Strobl and M. Ahlhaus, lawyers,

interveners,

v

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), represented by M. Heikkilä, N. Herbatschek and A. Hautamäki, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

Federal Republic of Germany, represented by J. Möller and N. Scheffel, acting as Agents,

and by

European Commission, represented by D. Milanowska and K. Mifsud‑Bonnici, acting as Agents,

interveners,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of J. Svenningsen, President, C. Mac Eochaidh and J. Martín y Pérez de Nanclares (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: I. Kurme, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 2 October 2024,

gives the following

Judgment ( 2 )

1 By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants, LAT Nitrogen Piesteritz GmbH, formerly Borealis Agrolinz Melamine Deutschland GmbH, and Cornerstone Chemical Co., seek the annulment of Decision D(2022)9120-DC of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 16 December 2022, in so far as that decision identifies melamine as a substance of very high concern for the purposes of Article 57 of 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; ‘the contested decision’).

I. Background to the dispute

…

3 On 26 August 2022, the competent authority of the Federal Republic of Germany submitted a dossier in accordance with Annex XV to Regulation No 1907/2006 in favour of the identification of melamine as a substance of very high concern, in so far as that substance met the criteria set out in Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006 (‘the dossier drawn up in accordance with Annex XV’).

4 On 2 September 2022, ECHA, pursuant to Article 59(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006, invited all the interested parties to submit their comments on the dossier drawn up in accordance with Annex XV, by 17 October 2022. LAT Nitrogen Piesteritz, through the European Melamine Producers Association (EMPA), submitted its comments on 17 October 2022.

5 As it had received comments on the identification of melamine, ECHA forwarded the dossier to the Member State Committee (‘MSC’) in accordance with Article 59(7) of Regulation No 1907/2006.

6 At its 80th meeting, held between 13 and 15 December 2022, the MSC reached a unanimous agreement on the identification of melamine as a substance of very high concern. The grounds of the agreement were set out in the support document relating to melamine (‘the support document’).

7 On 16 December 2022, in accordance with Article 59(8) of Regulation No 1907/2006, ECHA adopted the contested decision, which provided for the inclusion of melamine in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006, as referred to in Article 59(1) of that regulation (‘the candidate list’), on the ground that it gave rise to an equivalent level of concern to those of other substances listed in Article 57(a) to (e) of Regulation No 1907/2006 and had probable serious effects on human health and the environment, within the meaning of Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006.

…

II. Forms of order sought

9 The applicants, supported by Fritz Egger GmbH & Co. OG and the other legal persons whose names are set out in the annex, claim that the Court should:

– annul the contested decision in so far as it includes melamine in the candidate list;

– order ECHA to pay the costs.

10 Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Puławy S.A., OCI Nitrogen BV and Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd, intervening in support of the form of order sought by the applicants, submit that the Court should:

– grant the form of order sought by the applicants;

– order ECHA to pay the costs incurred by them.

11 ECHA contends that the Court should:

– dismiss the action;

– order the applicants to pay the costs of the main parties;

– order Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Puławy, OCI Nitrogen and Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) and Fritz Egger and the other legal persons whose names are set out in the annex to bear their own costs.

12 The Federal Republic of Germany and the European Commission, intervening in support of the form of order sought by ECHA, submit that the Court should:

– dismiss the action;

– order the applicants to pay the costs.

III. Law

…

B. The sixth plea in law, alleging that ECHA acted ultra vires and infringed Article 59(8) of Regulation No 1907/2006

24 The applicants, supported by Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Puławy, OCI Nitrogen and Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) and by Fritz Egger and the other legal persons whose names are set out in the annex, claim that ECHA acted ultra vires and infringed Article 59(8) and Article 85(8) of Regulation No 1907/2006. In their view, ECHA wrongly considered, under the voting rules laid down in Article 19(5) of the MSC Rules of Procedure of 25 March 2021, that the decision to identify melamine as a substance of very high concern had been unanimously approved by the MSC, even though four Member States had abstained from voting.

…

1. The first part of the sixth plea, alleging that Article 19 (5) of the MSC Rules of Procedure is unlawful

27 The applicants submit that no provision of Regulation No 1907/2006 provides that a member of the MSC can abstain from voting and that such a vote would be considered a unanimous agreement of the MSC. Only Article 19(5) of the MSC Rules of Procedure of 25 March 2021 provides that abstentions by MSC members present in person or represented by a proxy do not prevent the MSC’s adoption of tasks which require unanimity.

28 According to the applicants, where Regulation No 1907/2006 allows ECHA bodies to adopt voting rules, that is expressly set out in the provisions of that regulation, which is not the case with the MSC. In that respect, Article 85(9) of Regulation No 1907/2006, which establishes the list of matters which the rules of procedure of the Committees, including the MSC, may concern, does not provide for the adoption of rules on voting arrangements.

29 As a preliminary point, it is necessary to reject ECHA’s argument that the applicants’ criticism in respect of Article 19(5) of the MSC Rules of Procedure goes beyond the scope of the present dispute.

30 The applicants submit that the contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of essential procedural requirements since it was adopted on the basis of a provision of the MSC Rules of Procedure that does not comply with the superior rule of law, in this case Regulation No 1907/2006.

31 In so doing, they rely, in essence, on a plea of illegality in respect of Article 19(5) of the MSC Rules of Procedure.

32 According to the applicants, the illegality of that provision stems, first, from the fact that the MSC was not competent to lay down the voting rules in its Rules of Procedure and, second, from the content of that provision.

33 In the first place, as regards the MSC’s power to lay down the voting rules in its rules of procedure, it must, first, be noted, as observed by ECHA, that Article 85(9) of Regulation No 1907/2006 provides that the rules of procedure of its committees, which include the MSC, ‘in particular’ lay down the procedures for replacing members, the procedures for delegating certain tasks to working groups, the creation of working groups and the establishment of a procedure for the urgent adoption of opinions. Thus, the list of issues which may be dealt with by the provisions of the rules of procedure, laid down in that provision, is not exhaustive, with the result that it cannot be inferred merely from reading Article 85(9) of Regulation No 1907/2006 that there is an illegality affecting Article 19(5) of the MSC Rules of Procedure.

34 Second, it is true that Article 82 of Regulation No 1907/2006 expressly provided that ECHA’s Management Board is to adopt its voting rules. However, for the same reason as that set out in paragraph 33 above, it cannot be inferred from that that ECHA Committees, including the MSC, could not do the same, in the absence of a similar express reference in Regulation No 1907/2006.

35 It should be added that, apart from Article 59(8) of Regulation No 1907/2006, which provides that decisions identifying substances of very high concern are to be adopted by unanimous agreement of the MSC, no other provision of that regulation relates to voting procedures within the MSC. The rule laid down in Article 59(8) of Regulation No 1907/2006 does not address all the considerations relating to the organisation of a vote, such as the quorum to be reached and the consequences of a quorum not being reached or, as is at issue in the present case, the way in which abstentions are capable of affecting the outcome of the vote.

36 Since Regulation No 1907/2006 governs only the issue of the type of majority to be achieved for the adoption of a decision identifying substances of very high concern, it was necessary to lay down the other voting rules in the MSC Rules of Procedure, in order to avoid the risk that the MSC might find itself faced with a legal vacuum. The establishment of such rules contributes, moreover, to ensuring that they are predictable and enables the addressees of the acts adopted to be aware of them and, as in the present case, to challenge them before the Courts of the European Union. Those rules therefore help to preserve legal certainty.

37 Consequently, the MSC did have the power to lay down, in its Rules of Procedure, its voting rules.

38 In the second place, as regards the content of Article 19(5) of the MSC Rules of Procedure, it should be noted that that provision provides that abstentions by members present in person or represented by a proxy do not prevent the MSC’s adoption of tasks which require unanimity.

39 That rule codified the procedural practice followed by the MSC, which drew inspiration from Article 238(4) TFEU. According to the latter provision, relating to votes taking place within the Council of the European Union, abstentions by members present in person or represented do not prevent the adoption by the Council of acts which require unanimity (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 April 2015, Hitachi Chemical Europe and Others v ECHA , T‑135/13, EU:T:2015:253, paragraph 132).

40 In those circumstances and in the absence of any argument put forward by the applicants to explain why the MSC was not entitled to draw inspiration from Article 238(4) TFEU for the establishment of its own voting rules, it should be noted that Article 19(5) of the MSC Rules of Procedure does not appear to be the manifestation of that committee acting ultra vires.

41 Furthermore, as regards the argument of Fritz Egger and the other legal persons whose names are set out in the annex, to the effect that, in essence, the rule laid down in Article 19(5) of the MSC Rules of Procedure unlawfully restricts the exercise of the powers of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament, that argument must be rejected, without there being any need to assess its admissibility.

42 The argument put forward by Fritz Egger and the other legal persons whose names are set out in the annex is based on the incorrect premiss that an abstention must be treated as a refusal of the proposal discussed. The Court of Justice has already had the opportunity to state that abstention must be understood in its usual sense as a refusal to adopt a position on a given proposal (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 June 2021, Hungary v Parliament , C‑650/18, EU:C:2021:426, paragraph 84).

43 In that regard, and contrary to what is claimed by the applicants, the fact that the Court of Justice has expressed its views on that subject in a case concerning a vote in the Parliament under the fourth paragraph of Article 354 TFEU, when the Parliament is called upon to take a decision under Article 7 TEU, is not such as to render irrelevant the definition of abstention given. In that sense, once the context in which that concept applies is the same, namely the organisation of a vote, the definition given by the Court is relevant.

44 The EU legislature chose, in the context of Article 238(4) TFEU, to consider that the act of refraining from taking a position should not prevent the adoption of decisions requiring unanimous agreement. Since Article 19(5) of the MSC Rules of Procedure is based on that provision, it cannot be argued that it runs counter to fundamental democratic principles and prejudices the powers of the Commission, the Council or the Parliament.

45 In the light of all of the foregoing, the plea of illegality raised in respect of Article 19(5) of the MSC Rules of Procedure and, consequently, the first part of the sixth plea, must be rejected.

…

C. The fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicants’ right to be heard

…

2. The second part of the fifth plea, alleging an error of law as regards the scope of Article 59 (4) of Regulation No 1 907/2006

74 The parties disagree on the scope of Article 59(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006. While the applicants, supported by Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Puławy, OCI Nitrogen and Methanol Holdings (Trinidad), and by Fritz Egger and the other legal persons whose names are set out in the annex, consider that they have a genuine right to be heard under that provision, ECHA, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission, considers that that provision establishes only a right to submit comments.

75 In that regard, in the first place, it should be noted that, even though the French-language version of Article 59(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 refers to the right of interested parties to submit ‘ informations ’ (information), the right of those parties consists of a broader right to submit ‘comments’. That interpretation is confirmed by the English-, Spanish-, Italian- and German-language versions of that provision, which refer to ‘ comments ’, ‘ observaciones ’, ‘ osservazioni ’ and ‘ Bemerkungen ’ respectively. That interpretation is also confirmed by the interpretation adopted by ECHA both in its practice and in its pleadings submitted to the Court.

76 As regards the judgment of 9 June 2021, Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical v ECHA (T‑177/19, not published, EU:T:2021:336), it is true that its English-language version refers to a ‘right to submit information’. However, the reference to the word ‘information’ rather than to the word ‘comments’ is due solely to the literal translation of the French-language version of paragraph 244 of that judgment, which reproduces the content of the provision in question. In that judgment, the Court did not intend to limit the type of comments that interested parties were entitled to make in the context of the public consultation. On the contrary, it is apparent from paragraphs 246 to 248 of the abovementioned judgment that the undertakings concerned had had the opportunity to submit comments, both during that public consultation and during the MSC meeting.

77 In the second place, as regards the question of whether Article 59(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 confers, on the interested parties, a genuine right to be heard, it is true that, as submitted by Fritz Egger and the other legal persons whose names are set out in the annex, the Court stated, in paragraph 85 of the judgment of 11 May 2017, Deza v ECHA (T‑115/15, EU:T:2017:329), that it followed from the wording of Article 59(2) to (5) of Regulation No 1907/2006 that the purpose of the identification procedure for the substances referred to in Article 57 of Regulation No 1907/2006 was to ensure that Member States and interested parties to that procedure could be heard before the drafting of a decision to include a substance in the candidate list.

78 In that regard, although ECHA, in response to the statement in intervention of Fritz Egger and of the other legal persons whose names are set out in the annex, attempts to place that declaration by the Court in its context, emphasising that Article 59(2) to (5) of Regulation No 1907/2006 refers to the possibility for Member States and interested parties to comment on the identification of the substance concerned, the fact remains that, in paragraph 91 of the judgment of 11 May 2017, Deza v ECHA (T‑115/15, EU:T:2017:329), the Court concluded that there had been no infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard.

79 However, there is no need to conclude from that that the Court intended to recognise that the interested parties enjoyed a genuine right to be heard under Article 59(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006.

80 First, it should be noted that the Court was not asked to rule on the question of whether Article 59(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 conferred on the interested parties a right to be heard, but that it had before it a broader question, namely whether, in the instant case, the entire procedure laid down in Article 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 had been complied with. More specifically, the main issue concerned the manner in which several proposals for identifying a substance as a substance of very high concern within the meaning of Article 57 of that regulation had to be presented, be they different substances or different properties of the same substance referred to in that article (judgment of 11 May 2017, Deza v ECHA , T‑115/15, EU:T:2017:329, paragraph 86).

81 Second, in order to reach the conclusion set out in paragraph 91 of the judgment of 11 May 2017, Deza v ECHA (T‑115/15, EU:T:2017:329), the Court found, in paragraph 90 of that judgment, that the dossier regarding the substance in question in that case had indeed been the subject of the comments procedure provided for in Article 59(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1907/2006, and that it was not disputed between the parties that the interested parties, including the applicant, had in fact had an opportunity to submit their comments.

82 Furthermore, it should be noted that, in the judgment of 9 June 2021, Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical v ECHA (T‑177/19, not published, EU:T:2021:336, paragraph 243), the Court stated that Article 59(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 did not guarantee a right to be heard to interested parties. It also follows from paragraphs 243 and 244 of that judgment that that provision merely provided for a public consultation that did not confer on interested parties any specific procedural right other than the right to submit comments. Thus, ECHA was not required, under that provision, to hear an individual who might be concerned by the decision taken at the end of the administrative procedure.

83 In the order of 22 December 2023, Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical v Commission and ECHA (T‑121/23, not published, EU:T:2023:876, paragraph 59), the Court referred to the judgment of 9 June 2021, Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical v ECHA (T‑177/19, not published, EU:T:2021:336), in order to infer from it that Article 59(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 contained no procedural safeguard such as to render the action admissible (order of 22 December 2023, Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical v Commission and ECHA , T‑121/23, not published, EU:T:2023:876, paragraph 62).

84 In any event, the Court had the opportunity to confirm its case-law according to which, in the context of the application of the provisions of Regulation No 1907/2006, a public consultation does not confer on interested parties specific procedural rights, but only the right to submit comments (see, to that effect, judgments of 30 June 2021, Global Silicones Council and Others v Commission , T‑226/18, not published, EU:T:2021:403, paragraph 321, and of 15 September 2021, Laboratoire Pareva and Biotech3D v Commission , T‑337/18 and T‑347/18, EU:T:2021:594, paragraphs 220 to 223).

…

3. The third part of the fifth plea, alleging infringement of the right recognised in Article 59(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006

…

99 Under Article 85(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006, stakeholders may also be invited to attend meetings as observers, as appropriate, at the request of ECHA’s Committee members or ECHA’s Management Board.

100 The status of observers has been defined by ECHA. It thus published, on 18 December 2020, a code of conduct for observers at ECHA meetings (‘the code of conduct for observers’). It follows that the role of observers is, first, to provide, on request, technical and scientific data based on their expertise and knowledge and, second, to contribute to the flow of information from ECHA and its bodies to undertakings. Furthermore, the code of conduct for observers states that observers may participate in meetings of the MSC at the discretion of the Chair and will not be able to attend any closed sessions of those meetings. Lastly, observers are invited to signal in advance to the Chair and, at the latest, at the beginning of the meeting, the points on which they wish to intervene. It is stated that those interventions must be brief and respect the time allocated by the Chair.

101 It follows that observers intervene on an ad hoc basis during the meetings of the MSC, either in order to answer questions put to them by the members of the MSC or in order to express their comments on points decided in advance. However, it is not envisaged that observers will able to express their views exhaustively on all the points discussed at those meetings or on all the evidence gathered during the procedure for the identification of a substance as a substance of very high concern.

102 Thus, in the same way that Article 59(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 does not provide for a right other than the right to submit comments during the public consultation, Article 85(4) of that regulation and observer status as defined by ECHA do not confer, on the interested parties participating in the MSC meeting, a right to be heard. They merely give those parties the opportunity to submit comments on specific points which may be determined in advance.

…

D. The first plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006 and manifest errors of assessment

…

2. The first part of the first plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment, in that ECHA relied on properties, not constituting ‘hazards’, which were deemed to satisfy the condition of ‘effects’ for the purposes of the application of Article 57 (f) of Regulation No 1 907/2006

141 In the context of the first part of the first plea, the applicants submit, in essence, that, for the purposes of the application of Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006, the intrinsic properties that can be taken into consideration are only those capable of having serious effects on human health or the environment and which therefore represent a hazard to human health or the environment. In that regard, they consider that the concept of ‘hazard’ within the meaning of sections 1 to 4 of Annex I to Regulation No 1907/2006 is intrinsically and expressly linked to the classification of hazards as established by Regulation No 1272/2008. They note that none of the categories of hazards defined by Regulation No 1272/2008 covers the environmental fate properties of a substance. They argue that ECHA thereby made a manifest error of assessment by associating, with the environmental fate properties of melamine, ‘effects’ meeting the criteria laid down in Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006, even though those properties are not related to hazards.

142 ECHA, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission, disputes those arguments.

143 In that regard, it should be noted that it follows from the case-law that Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006 requires that the effects of the substance on human health or the environment are capable of being regarded as ‘serious’, on account of, for example, their significance or their irreversible nature. The examination of that condition is based on an assessment of the hazards to human health or to the environment, on the basis of the information in the relevant parts of sections 1 to 4 of Annex I to Regulation No 1907/2006, as stated in section II of Annex XV to that regulation. It is therefore clear that Article 57(f) of that regulation requires an analysis of the hazards arising from the intrinsic properties of the substance under consideration (judgments of 15 March 2017, Hitachi Chemical Europe and Polynt v ECHA , C‑324/15 P, EU:C:2017:208, paragraph 27, and of 23 February 2022, Chemours Netherlands v ECHA , T‑636/19, not published, EU:T:2022:86, paragraph 35).

144 It is true that, as the applicants submit, sections 1 to 3 of Annex I to Regulation No 1907/2006 expressly refer to Regulation No 1272/2008. Thus, section 1 states that ‘the objectives of the human health hazard assessment shall be to determine the classification of a substance in accordance with Regulation … No 1272/2008’. Similarly, section 2 provides that ‘the objective of the hazard assessment for physicochemical properties shall be to determine the classification of a substance in accordance with Regulation … No 1272/2008’. Lastly, section 3 provides that ‘the objective of the environmental hazard assessment shall be to determine the classification of a substance in accordance with Regulation … No 1272/2008’. As regards section 4, a distinction must be drawn between persistent and bioaccumulative substances, on the one hand, and toxic substances, on the other. Whereas a substance may be regarded as toxic if it meets some of the criteria set out in Regulation No 1272/2008, the assessment of whether a substance is persistent and bioaccumulative is carried out in the light of criteria directly established by Annex XIII to Regulation No 1907/2006, without reference to Regulation No 1272/2008.

145 Similarly, it should be noted that Article 57(a) to (c) of Regulation No 1907/2006 provides for the identification, as substances of very high concern, of substances meeting certain classification criteria for CMR substances laid down by Regulation No 1272/2008.

146 It must be inferred from this that Regulation No 1272/2008 plays an important role in the identification of substances of very high concern under Article 57 of Regulation No 1907/2006.

147 However, it should be noted, first, that Regulation No 1272/2008 does not cover the identification of substances of very high concern with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006 and, second, that the Court of Justice has stated, in the context of the application of Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006, that inclusion in a hazard class under Regulation No 1272/2008 was neither a necessary condition, nor a sufficient condition in that regard (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 March 2017, Polynt v ECHA , C‑323/15 P, EU:C:2017:207, paragraph 28).

148 Furthermore, although ECHA may take into account certain properties for which Annex XIII to Regulation No 1907/2006 lays down criteria to which Article 57(d) and (e) of that regulation refers (judgment of 23 February 2022, Chemours Netherlands v ECHA , T‑636/19, not published, EU:T:2022:86, paragraph 163), the Court has already held that the criteria laid down in Annex XIII cannot, as such, guide ECHA or the Commission in the identification of the substances referred to in Article 57(f) of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 November 2021, Sasol Germany and Others v Commission , T‑661/19, not published, EU:T:2021:779, paragraph 37).

149 Lastly, it should be noted that it follows from the case-law that Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006 provides for an independent mechanism that makes it possible to identify, as being of very high concern, substances which have not already been designated as such under that provision (judgment of 15 March 2017, Polynt v ECHA , C‑323/15 P, EU:C:2017:207, paragraph 25).

150 In that regard, the fact that that provision refers, for the purpose of determining the equivalent level of concern, to the substances referred to in Article 57(a) to (e) of Regulation No 1907/2006, does not mean that a substance must meet the identification criteria for those substances in order to be identified as a substance of very high concern under Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006 (judgment of 23 February 2022, Chemours Netherlands v ECHA , T‑636/19, not published, EU:T:2022:86, paragraph 92).

151 It follows from all of those considerations that, for the purpose of identifying a substance as being of very high concern under Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006, ECHA is not limited solely to the hazard classes established by Regulation No 1272/2008 or by the criteria specifically laid down in Annex XIII to Regulation No 1907/2006.

152 By contrast, as noted in paragraph 134 above, it is necessary for ECHA to analyse the hazards arising from the intrinsic properties of the substance the identification of which as a substance of very high concern is envisaged. The concept of ‘hazard’ describes any product or procedure ‘capable’ of having an adverse effect on human health (see judgment of 20 September 2019, PlasticsEurope v ECHA , T‑636/17, EU:T:2019:639, paragraph 98 and the case-law cited) or for the environment.

153 In that regard, the Court has already held that Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006 does not prohibit a combination of several effects in order to establish their seriousness. The use of the plural in the expression ‘serious effects’ clearly indicates that several different effects may be taken into account. The impact on human health or on the environment is not necessarily less serious if it results only from several effects taken together (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 February 2022, Chemours Netherlands v ECHA , T‑636/19, not published, EU:T:2022:86, paragraph 98). It must be inferred from that that Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006 does not require that, in order to contribute to the identification of a substance as being of very high concern, an intrinsic property must, as such and taken in isolation, be capable of having a serious effect. However, it is necessary that it has an effect which, in combination with other effects linked to other intrinsic properties of that substance, is capable of having a serious effect on human health or the environment.

154 On that point, the applicants submit that the environmental fate properties of melamine, in particular its persistence and mobility, do not, as such, have any effects on human health or the environment, since they entail only the distribution or presence of that substance.

155 However, the very fact that, because of its environmental fate properties, a substance can easily be distributed and present in the environment is indeed an effect, since those are the consequences associated with its intrinsic properties. In any event, the applicants’ argument is contradicted by the wording of Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006 itself, since it is apparent from that wording that persistent and bioaccumulative substances can be regarded as substances having serious effects on human health or the environment. Persistence and bioaccumulation are indeed properties linked to the environmental fate of a substance.

156 In those circumstances, the effects associated with the environmental fate properties of a substance, such as its persistence, mobility and potential for long-range transport, may be taken into consideration in order to determine whether a substance may have serious effects on human health or the environment which give rise to an equivalent level of concern, in accordance with Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006.

157 It should also be noted that, in the context of paragraphs 106, 191 and 209 of the judgment of 23 February 2022, Chemours Netherlands v ECHA (T‑636/19, not published, EU:T:2022:86), the Court confirmed the fact that very high persistence, mobility, low adsorption potential and high water solubility making the substance fully bioavailable for uptake via drinking water were intrinsic properties that could be considered in order to verify that the conditions laid down in Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006 were satisfied.

158 In that context, it is not necessary to examine the definition of the concept of ‘intrinsic properties’ that was adopted in the judgment of 23 November 2022, CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission (T‑279/20, T‑283/20 and T‑288/20, under appeal, EU:T:2022:725) and relied on by the applicants. In any event, apart from the fact that that judgment concerns a case in which Regulation No 1272/2008 applies, the definition of the concept of ‘intrinsic properties’ provided in paragraph 138 of that judgment, namely that it must be interpreted in its literal sense as referring to the ‘properties which a substance has in and of itself’, does not exclude the environmental fate properties of a substance. The way in which a substance will interact with its environment does depend on its intrinsic properties.

159 Therefore, the applicants cannot validly claim that ECHA made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the environmental fate properties of melamine had effects that could contribute to a finding that melamine had to be identified as a substance of very high concern under Article 57(f) of Regulation No 1907/2006.

160 The first part of the first plea must therefore be rejected.

…

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders LAT Nitrogen Piesteritz GmbH, formerly Borealis Agrolinz Melamine Deutschland GmbH, and Cornerstone Chemical Co., to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Commission to bear their own costs;

4. Orders Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Puławy S.A., OCI Nitrogen BV and Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd to bear their own costs;

5. Orders Fritz Egger GmbH & Co. OG and the other interveners whose names are set out in the annex to bear their own costs.

Svenningsen

Mac Eochaidh

Martín y Pérez de Nanclares

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 July 2025.

[Signatures]

* Language of the case: English.

1 The list of the other interveners is annexed only to the version sent to the parties and to the addressees referred to in Article 55 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

2 Only the paragraphs of the present judgment which the Court considers it appropriate to publish are reproduced here.