Court confirms Bisphenol A as an endocrine disrupter to human health
On 20 September 2019, the General Court issued a judgment in case T-636/17 dismissing in its entirety an action brought against ECHA’s decision to include bisphenol A (EC 201-245-8, CAS 80-05-7) in the Candidate List on the basis that it is a substance of a very high concern having endocrine disrupting properties for human health. The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate legal or scientific error by ECHA rendering the identification as unlawful or implausible.
Judgment [EN]
Court judgment on making 1-bromopropane subject to REACH authorisation
On 20 September 2019, the General Court issued a judgment in case T-610/17 dismissing in its entirety an action seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision to include 1-bromopropane (nPB) (EC 203-445-0, CAS 106-94-5) in the Authorisation List, following ECHA’s Annex XIV recommendation.
The main points from the judgment relevant to ECHA are that:
- ECHA can use grouping considerations, i.e. interchangeability with a substance already in Annex XIV, in its Annex XIV recommendation. In doing so, it is sufficient to establish the existence of a potential risk of substitution.
- ECHA did not commit any error of assessment when computing the tonnage of nPB within the scope of authorisation, and when assessing the potential risk of substitution of nPB with trichloroethylene. In assessing tonnage data, ECHA is entitled to rely primarily on registration data and, in case there is inconsistency with tonnage data provided in the public consultation, to use worst-case assumptions.
Judgment
For the first time, the General Court rules on decisions of the Board of Appeal in substance evaluation cases
The General Court took a position on the scope and intensity of the power of review of the Board of Appeal (BoA) on appeals against ECHA decisions under substance evaluation (T-125/17, BASF Grenzach v ECHA; and T-755/17, Germany v ECHA). The two judgements supported the position of the BoA and rejected the arguments of BASF and Germany in the two cases.
The Court confirmed that the BoA is empowered to review ECHA decisions not only concerning legal aspects, but also concerning scientific and technical aspects. The judgments confirmed that:
- the BoA is not required to conduct a completely new (‘de novo’) evaluation,
- the procedure before the BoA has an adversarial nature, and
- the BoA is to mainly confine itself to examining the pleas and arguments of the appellant.
The Court further confirmed that the intensity of the review carried out by the BoA can be greater than that of a review carried out by the EU courts in cases involving the assessment of highly complex scientific and technical facts and that the BoA is not limited to verifying manifest errors.
Judgment T-125/17, BASF Grenzach v ECHA | Judgment T-755/17, Germany v ECHA
|
