On 5 July 2023, the General Court rendered its judgment in case T-639/20 TIB Chemicals AG. The action was dismissed but the judgment contains highly relevant rulings for economic actors confronted with a Harmonized Classification process under the CLP Regulation.
In particular, the General Court implies that when RAC relies on read-across, it should follow the rules of Annex XI to REACH and ECHA's applicable guidance. The General Court would review if RAC committed Manifest errors of assessment in that regard. This is a very important clarification for on-going harmonized classification processes.
In that case, the applicant was challenging the harmonized classification of the substances dioctyltin dilaurate (EC: 222-883-3; CAS: 3648-18-8) and stannane, dioctyl-, bis(coco acyloxy) derivs. (EC: 293-901-5; CAS: 91648-39-4) as Repr. 1B and STOT RE 1 (DOTL). The seven pleas in law raised by the applicant were rejected and the action was ultimately dismissed.
Some key takeaways can be highlighted from that case:
- The General Court implies that the conditions of Annex
XI to REACH to conduct a valid read-across may not only apply to
registrants under REACH but also to EU authorities, including the
RAC. In the case at hand, the Court links the
justification of a read across in the CLH report With requirements
of Annex XI to REACH, which notably specifies the conditions to be
met for a read-across. The Court even refers to the relevant
guidance of ECHA i.e., Chapter R.6 of the Guidance on
information requirements and CSA, and the Read-Across Assessment
Framework (RAAF). Interestingly, the Court makes a relatively
advanced analysis as to how the RAC justified its read-across to
verify that it did not commit manifest errors of assessment. It is
implied that Annex XI to REACH serves as a benchmark for such
assessment/ Although the applicant was not successful in that case,
authorities including ECHA may have to follow Annex XI and their
own guidance when relying on read-across and, possibly, more
broadly on grouping.
- The Commission has no obligation to await the
completion of ongoing studies as regard to substances undergoing a
CLH process. The Court makes a strict reading of the CLP,
and considers that such obligation would "make it
impossible to classify a substance" and would thus be
contrary to the objective of the CLP to ensure a high level of
protection of human health and the environment. The Court also
draws on Article 37(5) of the CLP that provides that the Commission
is to adopt CLH "without undue delay" where it
finds that a CLH is appropriate, to reject the obligation to
generate additional information in the course of the CLH process.
It could still be argued that this should not be the case in
situations where authorities would be responsible for the
delay.
- The industry has no procedural right to comment on the
RAC opinion itself. The General Court considers that
Article 37(4) seeks to ensure that comments can be submitted on the
proposal of CLH. However, the Court fails to see any right to
comment on the RAC opinion itself. The reasoning followed by the
judges to came to this conclusion is not evident in the
judgement.
- The Commission is not required to conduct an impact assessment before adopting a CLH. For the Court the decision of the Commission to adopt a CLH is essentially based on scientific data. Moreover, there is no indication in the CLH procedure, as foreseen in article 37 of the CLP, that the Commission is to conduct such impact assessment but rather that it should follow a given process including the submission of a CLH dossier by specific actors and the involvement of the RAC of ECHA.
Originally published 10 July 2023
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) and non-legal service providers, which provide consultancy services (collectively, the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC ("PKWN") is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. Details of the individual Mayer Brown Practices and PKWN can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of Mayer Brown.
© Copyright 2023. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.