ECHA Board of Appeal annuls ECHA's decision on substance evaluation

On 25 September 2018, the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency (''ECHA'') ruled in case A-008-2017, annulling the Agency’s decision of 23 March 2017 on the substance evaluation of 2,2',6,6'-tetra-tert-butyl-4,4'-methylenediphenol pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals ("the REACH Regulation").

The Appellants, represented by Fieldfisher, challenged this decision in so far as it required providing information on an extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study ("EOGRTS") in rats (oral route) and a soil simulation test.


The Appellants submitted that the Agency failed to fulfil the conditions for imposing further information requirements under Article 46 of the REACH Regulation and failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons, in particular regarding the potential risk perceived by the Agency. In addition, the Appellants claimed that the Agency failed to provide information or explanations on how the information required in the Contested Decision would lead to an improvement of the risk management measures in place.

Moreover, the Appellants claimed that the requirement to conduct an EOGRTS was based on an error of assessment, and there was insufficient weight-of-evidence to justify the request for information. In their view, whilst two high quality and reliable studies showed either no adverse effects or reversible effects, the Agency chose to rely on four old studies of poor or unreliable quality to support its finding of the possibility of adverse effects.

The Appellants further argued that the Contested Decision should be partially annulled also in relation to the Agency's request to conduct a soil simulation study with use of strong extraction techniques, detection of degraded metabolites at 0.1% w/w and parallel testing at different temperatures (20 °C and 12 °C).


As regards the requirement to conduct an EOGRTS, the Board of Appeal took the view of the Appellants that the Agency had made no evaluation whatsoever of whether the available information showed 'serious concerns about the potential for adverse effects on fertility or development' within the meaning of Column 2 of Section 8.7.1. of Annex VIII of the REACH Regulation.

According to the Board of Appeal, the rights of the registrants were adversely affected by the Agency's failure to assess whether there were 'serious concerns about the potential for adverse effects on fertility or development' and therefore whether the EOGRTS was an information requirement for some or all registrants, some of which registered the substance at a lower tonnage band.

The Board of Appeal further noted that, as the Agency did not carry out an assessment of which registrants would be required to provide the EOGRTS, it is not known which of the registrants should pay a share of the costs relating to the performance of that test. As the Agency failed to assess all the relevant factors and circumstances of this case, the Board of Appeal followed the Appellants' claim and annulled the requirement to perform an EOGRTS.

As regards the requirement to provide information on the soil simulation test, however, the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal with the exception of the requirement to use 20 °C during the test for the identification of potential metabolites which is annulled. Indeed, the kinetic and metabolite identification parts of the soil simulation testing should both be performed at 12 °C. The Board of Appeal set the new deadline for submitting the information on soil simulation testing on 4 January 2021.

Voir aussi : Fieldfisher (Belgium) LLP ( Mr. Claudio Mereu ,  Mrs. Maud Grunchard )


Mr. Claudio Mereu Mr. Claudio Mereu
[email protected]
Mrs. Maud Grunchard Mrs. Maud Grunchard
Of Counsel
[email protected]

Click here to see the ad(s)
Tous les articles Droit Européen

Derniers articles Droit Européen

EU Court of Justice orders another judicial State aid review of Belgian Excess Profit Rulings

On 16 September 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued its judgement on whether the Belgian excess profit...

Read more

EU Foreign Subsidies and Antitrust: an ongoing quest towards certainty and clarity

The European Commission’s proposed regulation on foreign subsidies consists of two notification-based tools to inves...

Read more

The CJEU extends Achmea to intra-EU Energy Charter Treaty arbitrations

In a judgment dated 2 September 2021 in Komstroy v Moldova (Case C-741/19), the Court of Justice of the Eur...

The CJEU extends Achmea to intra-EU Energy Charter Treaty arbitrations Read more

ECB launches digital euro project

The European Central Bank has officially launched its digital euro project. But there is still a long way to go before dig...

ECB launches digital euro project Read more

Derniers articles de Mr. Claudio Mereu

EU Court of Justice landmark rulings on access to environmental information

On 23 November 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (''CJEU'') delivered two important judgmen...

Read more

''Brexit'': Impact on compliance with EU chemicals legislation

The impact of the referendum in the United Kingdom (''UK'') remains unclear and this is not different for ...

Read more

ECHA Board of Appeal ruling on substance evaluation process

The BoA rejects ECHA's requirement for a particular study and sets a three-tier "necessity test"

Read more

EU Court clarifies the calculation of SVHC in articles and related notification duties

On 10 September 2015, the European Court of Justice delivered an important judgment in case C-106/14 Féd&eacut...

Read more

Derniers articles de Mrs. Maud Grunchard

LexGO Network