All news
-
Presse
- Galerie d'images documentaires
- Vidéogrammes
- Safer chemicals podcast
-
Sujets scientifiques brûlants
- La prévention du cancer
- Produits chimiques sensibilisants cutanés
- Substances per- et polyfluoroalkylées (PFAS)
- Microplastiques
- Granules et paillis sur les terrains
- Encres de tatouage et maquillage permanent
- Glyphosate
- Perturbateurs endocriniens
- Bisphénols
- Stratégie pour la durabilité dans le domaine des produits chimiques
- Les essais sur les animaux dans le cadre de REACH
- Phtalates
- Biocides
- Plomb
- Research to enhance protection of our health and environment
- Corporate and visual Identity
- ECHA Articles
All news
Appeal against a testing proposal decision dismissed
ECHA/NR/18/07
ECHA’s Board of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a company which had proposed fulfilling certain information requirements by way of a read-across adaptation using the results of pending tests on another substance.
Helsinki, 31 January 2018 - In case A-005-2016, the Appellant contested an ECHA testing proposal decision concerning sodium O,O-diethyl dithiophosphate (EC 222-079-2; CAS 3338-24-7). According to that decision, the Appellant was required to provide information on a 90-day sub-chronic toxicity study and a pre-natal developmental toxicity study using the substance. ECHA rejected the Appellant’s read-across proposal according to which the Appellant would have performed the tests on another substance.
The Appellant requested the Board of Appeal to annul the contested decision, arguing that the Agency’s rejection of its read-across proposal breached Section 1.5 of Annex XI to the REACH Regulation. The Appellant also argued that the contested decision should have been adopted under the compliance check procedure rather than the testing proposal procedure. In addition, the Appellant argued that ECHA had breached a number of legal principles and procedural requirements.
The Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Consequently, the Appellant must provide the information requested in the contested decision by 7 February 2020.