1. ECHA
  2. About Us
  3. The way we work
  4. Procedures and Policies
  5. Transparency
  6. Cases where ECHA is a party
  7. Authorisation

Cases where ECHA is a party

Cases where ECHA is a party

Cases where ECHA is a party

This table contains all the court cases closed with a ruling to which ECHA has been a party. Interested parties can easily refer to decisions that may be relevant to them within the scope of ECHA's core activities (REACH, CLP, among others). For some of the cases, there may be a pending appeal or renvoi, which are also listed in the table. The table does not show staff or procurement cases.

The closed court cases have been classified into eight categories:

  1. REACH Candidate List: cases related to the identification of a substance as being of very high concern;
  2. REACH Registration: cases related to the joint submission of data obligation;
  3. REACH Authorisation: cases related to the inclusion of a substance in the Authorisation List (Annex XIV) and authorisation applications;
  4. REACH Restrictions: cases related to the inclusion of a substance in the Restrictions List (Annex XVII)
  5. REACH Evaluation: cases where ECHA has requested information from a registrant under the evaluation procedure (Articles 40, 41 or 46 of REACH);
  6. CLH: cases concerning the harmonisation of classification of a substance;
  7. Biocides: cases concerning biocides;
  8. ATD: cases related to requests for access to documents;
  9. Company size: cases related to company size verification and related charges. 
Related

All the available language versions of the court cases, including those which are pending, can be found at the European Court of Justice website.

  • bg
  • cs
  • da
  • de
  • el
  • en
  • es
  • et
  • fi
  • fr
  • hr
  • hu
  • it
  • lt
  • lv
  • mt
  • nl
  • pl
  • pt
  • ro
  • sk
  • sl
  • sv

 

 

Case number Parties Keywords Main Legal Provisions Procedurally linked cases Date of the ruling
T-360/13 VECCO and Others v Commission (ECHA as intervener) REACH — Inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation — Uses or categories of uses exempted from the authorisation requirement — Concept of ‘existing specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance’ — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration Art. 58(2) of REACH, Art. 1 of Directive 98/24, Art. 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union Appeal:
C-651/15 P 		25/09/2015
C-651/15 P VECCO and others v Commission (ECHA as intervener) Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) — Article 58(2) — Authorisation — Substances of very high concern — Exemption — Regulation amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation Art. 58(2) REACH Initial case:
T-360/13 		13/07/2017
T‑837/16 Sweden v Commission (ECHA as intervener) Commission Decision on the authorisation for the use of yellow and red chromate, molybdate and lead sulfate - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) - Articles 60(4) and (5) - Examination of unavailable resolutions as substitutes - Error of law Articles 60(4) and (5) of REACH

Appeal:

C-389/19 P-R

 07/03/2019
T‑108/17 ClientEarth v Commission (ECHA as intervener) REACH — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) — Request for internal review of a decision on marketing authorisation rejected as unfounded — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 Articles 57(c), 62, 60(7), 62(4), 60(4), 60(5), and 60(2) of REACH 04/04/2019
T‑610/17 ICL-IP Terneuzen, BV, and ICL Europe Coöperatief UA v European Commission (ECHA as intervener) REACH — Substances subject to authorisation — Inclusion of 1-bromoproprane (nPB) in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006 — Volumes — Registration dossier — Data — Substance grouping — Principle of sound administration — Right to conduct business and pursue a trade freely — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Equal treatment Art 57 (c), 58 (3), 59 (8) and  Annex XIV of REACH 20/09/2019
C-389/19 P-R European Commission v. Kingdom of Sweden (ECHA as intervener) Reference – Appeal – Articles 278 and 279 TFEU – Application for a stay execution – Request for interim measures – Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Chemical substances – Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures – Commission Decision on the authorisation for the use of yellow and red chromate, molybdate and lead sulfate Articles 278 and 279 TFEU

Initial case:
T-837/16

 21/11/19

C-389/19 P

 Commission v Sweden Appeal – Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals – European Commission decision authorising certain uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulfate red, substances listed in Annex XIV of that regulation – Substances of very high concern – Conditions of authorisation – Assessment of the lack of suitable alternatives

Article 60(4) of the REACH Regulation No 1907/2006
 

Appeal of the Case T-837/16

25/02/2021