Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:30:43.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Battle of the Norms in EU Chemicals Regulation Space: Reflections on the Court of Justice Decision on the Concept of “Articles” Under REACH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Steven Vaughan
Steven Vaughan*
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2015 in Case C-106/14, Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution (FCD) and Fédération des magasins de bricolage et de l’aménagement de la maison (FMB) v Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable et de lʼénergie.

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 665 - 670
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions in accordance with Article 117(4) of REACH and Article 46(2) of CLP, and a review of certain elements of REACH in line with Articles 75(2), 138(2), 138(3) and 138(6) of REACH: Staff Working Document SWD (2013) 25 final, 4.

2 European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) [2006] OJ L33/1 (hereafter ‘REACH’).

3 REACH, Article 6.

4 REACH, Title VIII.

5 REACH, Title VII.

6 Gunter Verheugen, EU Industry Commissioner. See: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1503325/Most-controversial-European-law-wins-parliamentary-approval.html#>

7 See: <http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/guidance.echa.europa.eu/>

8 Article 3(33)

9 Article 3(35) defines a recipient of an articles as “an industrial or professional user, or a distributor, being supplied with an article but does not include consumers”

10 Article 7(6)

11 ECHA, Guidance on Requirements for Substances in Articles (Version 2, April 2011) para 2.2. See: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/articles_en.pdf

12 ECHA, ibid, para 2.3

13 L. Bergkamp and N. Herbatschek, ‘The “Once an Article, Always an Article” Approach” (2015) 1 EJRR 155

14 For a more detailed review, see: Marianne Hoppenbrouwers, ‘The Story of the Button on the Jacket – Substances in Complex Products’ (2011) 8(4) JEEPL 353

15 Judgment, para 23

16 Judgment, para 23

17 Judgment, para 24

18 Judgment, para 25

19 Judgment, para 27

20 Judgment, para 26

21 Judgment, para 47

22 Judgment, para 49

23 Judgment, para 50

24 Judgment, para 50

25 Save as regards when articles become waste. See Article 2(2) of REACH. Judgment, para 52.

26 Judgment, para 53

27 Judgment, para 53

28 Judgment, para 55

29 Judgment, para 56

30 Judgment, para 57

31 Judgment, para 60

32 Judgment, para 75

33 ibid

34 Judgment, para 77

35 Judgment, para 78

36 Judgment, para 79

37 Judgment, para 80

38 Judgment, para 82

39 Judgment, para 44

40 Judgment, para 68

41 Judgment, para 28

42 Judgment, para 28

43 S. Vaughan, EU Chemicals Regulation: New Governance, Hybridity and REACH (Edward Elgar, 2015)

44 See, for example: Case C-325/91 France v Commission [1993] ECR I-3283, Case C-226/11 Expedia Inc v Competition Authority [2012] ECR I-795, Case T-187-99 Agrana Zucker v Commission [2001] ECR II-1587; Case T-214/95 Vlaamse Gewest v Commission [1998] ECR II-717; and Case C-520/09 P Arkema v Commission [2011] ECR I-08901

45 Bergkamp and Herbatschek, n 13 above, 159

46 Judgment, para 29

47 Vaughan, n 43 above

48 For a more detailed review of these issues, see: Vaughan, S., ‘Differentiation and Dysfunction: An Exploration of Post-Legislative Guidance Practices in 14 EU Agencies’ (2015) 17(1) Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar