G/TBT/W/731  
 
13 March  2020 
(20-1990) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original: English  
 
EUROPEAN UNION - REGULATION (EC) NO 1272 /2008 (CLP REGULATIO N) 
STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  TO THE COMMITTEE  
ON TECHNICAL BARRIER S TO TRADE  
26 – 27 FEBRUARY  2020 
The following communication, dated 12 March  2020, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the Russian Federation . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  The Russian delegation raises deep concern in respect of the cobalt and titanium dioxide 
classification under the 14th Adaptation to the technical progress to the CLP Regulation adopted by 
the European Commission on  4 October  2019.  
2.  We stress that carcinogenicity of cobalt is not doubted and accepted by the Russian Federation 
and the Russian and Global industr ies, but onl y for inhalation route of exposure. Cobalt classification 
for other routes of exposure is not justified due  to the fact that the relevant scientific data do not 
exist and the classification for all routes by default proposed by the Commission is not approp riate.  
3.  As for the concern, the European Commission rushed this classification without scientific 
justification and necessary assessment of its economic consequences, disregarding deep concerns 
raised by the Member -states of the EU itself and ignoring the comments made by the WTO members . 
Moreover, the Commission has chosen to ignore  the concerns of the Global and even  its own  
European industries , which are involved in manufacturing , use, and disposal of  the products 
containing cobalt and titanium dioxide.  In this sense, the 14th ATP is yet another  example of highly 
inappropriate implementation of the CLP Regulation as it contradict s the EU's own communication 
on the precautionary principle  application  (COM (2000) 1, section 6.1, item 16) that states "the 
implementation of the approach based on the precautionary principle should begin with a scientific 
evaluation, as complete as possible, and where possible, identifying at each stage the degree of 
scientific uncertainty ". In this particular case , the Commissi on has chosen not to follow the principles 
declared earlier  by the Commission itself.  
4.  It seems that the EU side did not deny the fact that the ir proposed measure was not based on 
scientific data and the classification of cobalt for all routes of exposure was simply applie d by default, 
however  the Article 2.2 of the Agreement on TBT explicitly requires scientific justification when 
elaborating technical regulations.  
5.  As far as UN GHS  is concerned , we stress that while the Commission applied the hazard -based 
approach , which  is a necessary step in classifying a substance , it becomes  inappropriate and 
misleading if no risk assessment follows it. Hazard identification does not mean that h ealth risks 
actually do exist for particular material/application/route of exposure. The UN GHS clearly stipulates 
that regulations should be based only and exclusively on full assessment of actual risks. Based on 
this, the cobalt classification case can b e regarded as an inappropriate and flawed implementation 
of UN GHS by the Commission.  
6.  As far as appropriate scientific data  are concerned , we take note that the relevant scientific study 
of cobalt carcinogenicity for the oral route of exposure has already been initiated by the global cobalt 
industry . While t he Commission was repeatedly informed about the industry 's commitment and 
intention to conduct th is study , this fact had not been taken into account either and the Commission G/TBT/W/731  
 
- 2 - 
 
  chose to rush its classifica tion without providing any ground s as for  the reasons for such urgency. 
Moreover, we also take a specific note that , to the best of our knowledge,  there has never yet been 
a case when the Commission amended a classification , which had entered into force within the 
frameworks of REACH and CLP Regulations , when new scientific information disproving such an 
overly restrictive classification arrived. In this regard, we request  the European Union to confirm 
that the Commission will expediently amend the current classification accordingly if the results of 
the study for cobalt metal carcinogenicity for the oral route of exposure are negative. Also, we 
request  the Commission to outline fully the existing legal and regulatory procedure that enables the 
Commi ssion to amend  such overly restrictive  classification s of chemicals and describes the relevant 
legislative procedures of the relevant process es.  
7.  As for transparency  and inclusiveness , we have to point  out that the information on the 
discussions within CAR ACAL's meeting  and their outcome is unacceptably limited and restricted.  
8.  There is no substantive information on the discussions during the se meetings that is being made 
public. There are no publicly available minutes  of CARACAL meetings , nor statements ma de by 
participants , nor other documents. In this regard,  the procedure is absolutely non-transparent. For 
this reason , we request the Commission  to provide us with the relevant information  on this issue .  
9.  As for economic implications , the adopted cobalt classification will have a negative impact on 
broad manufacturing, supplying and recycling the wide range of products.  Apart from cobalt itself, 
this non -scientific classification directly affects the markets for copper , nickel, steel,  and stainless 
steel, as these materials contain trace fractions of cobalt . In practical terms , it makes it impossibl e 
to recycl e these materials , which renders ineffective the EU own policies on resource efficiency, 
energy efficiency, recycling,  and reducti on of waste. The examples of the negative implications of 
this classification  are numerous that they have been provided within the meetings of the Committee 
on TBT and the Council for trade in goods as well as bilaterally by the Russian Federation , other 
nations, as well as the industry  itself, including the Cobalt and Nickel institutes . However all the 
presented data have never been considered, nor taken into account, nor even commented on. 
Basically, they  have remained ignored and unaddressed.  
10.  Finally, wi thin the frameworks of the scrutiny process and discussions  on the 14th ATP to the 
CLP that took place during the European Parliament plenary sittings on 22 January 2020 , the 
European Conservatives and reformists group raised  an objection with respect to this document. 
Earlier, several Member Countries, namely Germany and the Czech Republic, expressed their 
concerns with respect to the 14th ATP in November 2019 and therefo re, the scrutiny process was 
prolonged until 4 February 2020, despite the fact that initially the scheduled date was  4 December 
2019. Today, we do not have any information regarding formal steps of adoption and implementation 
of this regulation. Bearing al l these facts in mind, one has to conclude that the Commission has 
failed to conduct a comprehensive consultation on the proposed measure with the Member -states of 
the EU because these issues keep occurring during the final approval stages at the level of the 
European Parliament and the Council.  
11.  The Russian Federation has deep concerns regard ing the approach that the European 
Commission intends to take with respect to classif ying other chemicals , alloys,  and mixtures. In this 
regard, we request the European Commission to revert to science and good practice, as well as to  
follow its own declared principles.  
12.  In addition, we kindly remind the distinguished delegation of the European Union that they still 
have to provide some substantive response to the letters of the Russian Federation signed by the 
Minister of Economic Development to the European Commission sent to them in September 2019.  
 
__________