Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2015:809
Date: 2015-12-10
Language of the case: Swedish
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Approximation of laws;Research and technological development;Quantitative restrictions;REACH
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Sweden

summary of the findings of the Hovrätten set out in the order for reference, which the referring court does not call into question. 34 See point 35 above. 35 Except where the downstream user is also a producer of articles in which a substance is present and subject to registration under Article 7 of the REACH Regulation. 36 Article 37(4) read together with Article 38 of the REACH Regulation. 37 Article 6(1) of the REACH Regulation. Likewise, an importer or producer of articles must submit a registration to the Agency for any substance contained in those articles only if, inter alia, the substance is present in those articles in quantities totalling over one tonne per producer or importer per year (Article 7(1)). 38 At the hearing, the Swedish Government confirmed that approximately 90% of all registrations in the Swedish product register concern preparations of chemical substances. 39 For example, the indents of Paragraph 4 of the Chemicals Inspectorate’s Regulations which concern paints, varnishes and vehicle refinishing products, and preservatives contained in products. 40 For example, the indents of Paragraph 4 of the Chemicals Inspectorate’s Regulations which concern the product’s function or products that are used in manufacture as a starting product. 41 Article 56(2) of the REACH Regulation. 42 Article 68(1) of the REACH Regulation. 43 That dossier should include the identity of the substance and the restriction(s) proposed, a summary justification, information on hazard and risk, information on alternative substances and techniques, information on why action on a Community-wide basis is required and information on the socio-economic impact of the proposed restriction. 44 See in particular recitals 20, 21, 103, 105 and 119. 45 See for example, by analogy, the judgments in ATRAL, C‑14/02, EU:C:2003:265, paragraphs 49 and 61 and the case-law cited, and Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft and S. Spitz, C‑309/02, EU:C:2004:799, paragraphs 56 and 57. 46 The well-known ‘Dassonville formula’ (judgment in Dassonville, 8/74, EU:C:1974:82, paragraph 5). See, most recently, the judgment in Capoda Import-Export, C‑354/14, EU:C:2015:658, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited. 47 See, inter alia, the judgment in Ahokainen and Leppik, C‑434/04, EU:C:2006:609, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited. 48 Point 39 above. 49 See, by analogy, judgment in Kieffer and Thill, C‑114/96, EU:C:1997:316, paragraph 28. 50 See point 34 above. 51 See, for example, judgment in Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior and Publivia, C‑1/90 and C‑176/90, EU:C:1991:327, paragraph 13. 52 See, for example, judgments in Commission v Denmark, 302/86, EU:C:1988:421, paragraphs 9 and 12; Commission v Austria, C‑320/03, EU:C:2005:684, paragraph 70; and Mickelsson and Roos, C‑142/05, EU:C:2009:336, paragraph 32. 53 See, inter alia, judgment in ATRAL, C‑14/02, EU:C:2003:265, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited. 54 See, by analogy, judgment in Mickelsson and Roos, C‑142/05, EU:C:2009:336, paragraph 33. 55 See point 47 above. 56 Of course, relevant information may be available to the competent authorities for other reasons. At the hearing, the Swedish Government explained that separate national or local legislation may well govern, for example, the transport of dangerous substances. Relevant information may also be available as a result of the notification requirement in Article 6 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) (the ‘Seveso II Directive’). That provision has been replaced, with effect from 1 June 2015, by Article 7 of Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC (OJ 2012 L 197, p. 1) (the ‘Seveso III Directive’). 57 I emphasise again that the reasoning here concerns the obligation to notify as such, not any fees which Sweden apparently charges on chemical products imported into its territory. 58 See point 39 above. 59 See points 42 and 43 above.