Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Etamine and AB Etiproducts v ECHA

Pays/Territoire
Union européenne
Type de cour
Cour internationale
Date
Sep 21, 2011
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
European Court of Justice
Siège de la cour
Luxembourg
Juge
Prek, M.
Dittrich (Rapporteur), A.
Wiszniewska-Bialecka, I.
Numéro de référence
T-343/10
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Déchets et substances dangereuses
Mot clé
Produits de nettoyage/détergents Substances dangereuses
Résumé
On 8 March 2010, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Slovenia submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) a dossier which they had prepared concerning the identification of boric acid as a substance meeting the criteria referred to in Article 57(c) 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 Chemica(REACH). Three companies that imported borates into, and sold borates in, the EU asked the General Court to annul the decision of ECHA to include certain borates in the Candidate List. In this case, the decision being challenged was identified as the publication on the ECHA website of the updated Candidate List. The Court noted earlier judgments establishing that direct concern requires that the measure complained of directly affects the legal situation of the applicant. The applicants argued that they were directly concerned because inclusion in the Candidate List: affected their legal situation in that it constituted new hazard information requiring suppliers to update safety data sheets: the Court ruled that the identification of the substances as SVHCs did not contain new information since the substances already met the criteria for classification as hazardous under the Dangerous Substances Directive; identification of a substance as an SVHC, therefore, had no impact on the placing on the market and use of the substance; triggered the obligation in article 34(a) of REACH to communicate new information on hazardous properties up the supply chain: the Court ruled that article 34(a) did not impose requirements on the applicants as it only imposed obligations up the supply chain and in any event the identification of the substances as SVHCs did not include new information on hazardous properties; triggered the obligation in article 7(2) and 33 of REACH to notify and communicate information concerning SVHCs in articles: the Court ruled that those provisions were not of concern to the applicants as they were importers and sellers of substances and not producers, importers or suppliers of articles; and affected their material situation in that their customers would be reluctant to continue to buy products containing substances on the Candidate List: the Court ruled that the applicants had merely claimed, and not proven, this.
Texte intégral
COU-159033.pdf
Site web
curia.europa.eu