Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:626
Date: 2025-08-01
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Translation C-512/24 – 1 
Case C-512/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
23 July 2024 
Referring court: 
Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
12 July 2024 
Applicant: 
BÁV Zrt. 
Defendant: 
Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala 
  
Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary) 
… … 
Applicant: BÁV Zrt. 
(… Budapest …) 
… … 
Defendant: Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala 
(Budapest Metropolitan Government 
Office, Hungary) 
… 
… … 
Subject matter of the dispute: review of the lawfulness of an 
administrative decision … given in a 
commercial matter regarding an item 
made of the precious metal silver 
(jewellery) 
 
Order: 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 7. 2024 – CASE C-512/24 
 
2  
The referring court stays the proceedings and refers the following question to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
Must the concept ‘other metal components for jewellery making’, which appears 
in row 23, containing the entry on the substance cadmium, paragraph 10, point (i), 
of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council (‘the REACH Regulation), be interpreted as meaning that fillers 
used in brazing are also included in that concept? 
… [matters of national procedural law] 
Grounds 
Factual background to the order for reference 
1 On 13 September 2023, the applicant submitted to the defendant authority, 
together with the relevant application form, a precious metal item consisting of a 
piece of silver weighing 102.9 grimes (‘the bracelet’), to be stamped with a 
hallmark. The defendant subjected the bracelet to an X-ray fluorescence (XRY) 
spectrometry analysis, as a result of which that authority found that the cadmium 
content exceeded the measurement established in row 23 of Annex XVII to the 
REACH Regulation (0.01 % by weight). 
2 The officials of the Nemesfém Nyilvántartási, Ellenőrzési és Vizsgálati Osztály 
(Registration Department, Authentication and Assay of Precious Metals), part of 
the defendant authority, on their own initiative, discovered that the bracelet 
submitted for hallmarking was displayed at the applicant’s establishment in … 
[Budapest (Hungary)] as an item that was intended to be sold by auction. 
3 On 26 September 2023, the defendant carried out an official inspection of the 
applicant’s establishment and ordered that the bracelet be deposited with the 
authorities, so that additional analyses could be carried out. 
Decision of the defendant 
4 By a decision of 24 November 2023 …, the defendant found that the applicant had 
unlawfully placed the bracelet on the market and, consequently, issued it with a 
fine of HUF 150 000. It ordered that the deposited bracelet be released and handed 
back to the applicant or its authorised representative, but that it should not be 
placed on the market. 
5 The defendant based its decision on paragraph 8 of row 23, containing the entry 
on the substance cadmium, of Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation. 
6 The defendant observed that the piece which had been deposited with the 
authorities, with a weight of 102.9 grams according to the official weighing, was 
made of a silver alloy with a millesimal fineness of 800 and a cadmium content of 
BÁV 
 
3 
between 1 and 2%. It concluded that the provisions of the REACH Regulation had 
direct effect and were directly applicable in Hungary. It stated, in particular, that a 
high concentration of cadmium, hazardous to health, had been found in the brazed 
joints of the precious metal item and that that concentration in the brazes was 
greater than 0.01% by weight. 
7 The defendant found the actions of the applicant to have infringed paragraph 8 of 
row 23 of Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation, in accordance with which 
brazing fillers are not to be used or placed on the market if the concentration of 
cadmium is equal to or greater than 0.01 % by weight. 
Form of order sought by the applicant 
8 In its claim, the applicant asks the court to annul and render void the 
abovementioned decision and to require the defendant to begin a new procedure. 
9 In the opinion of the applicant, the defendant made its decision in an unlawful 
manner, as it did not apply paragraphs 8 to 11 of row 23 of Annex XVII to the 
REACH Regulation correctly, nor did it take into consideration the content of 
paragraphs 10 and 11 of that same row, and, consequently, it did not, in the course 
of the administrative procedure, carry out an investigation to clarify the facts with 
regard to the age of the silver item and the date on which it was placed on the 
market, even though the applicant had declared in that procedure that the item of 
jewellery dated back to the 1940s. 
10 The applicant notes that the paragraph dealing with the substance in row 23 of 
Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation lays down the rules relating to the cases, 
articles and forms in which cadmium and its compounds cannot be used. It 
emphasises that the defendant, when carrying out the analysis of the bracelet, 
detected the presence of a filler with a cadmium content in excess of the limits 
established in the legislation. The applicant objects that, in its decision, the 
defendant did not set out why it did not consider the content of paragraphs 10 and 
11, nor why it reached the conclusion that paragraph 8 constitutes a general 
prohibition which is also applicable to jewellery. 
11 The applicant underlines that paragraph 8 of row 23 of Annex XVII to the 
REACH Regulation solely establishes a prohibition with regard to the use and 
placing on the market of brazing fillers. It maintains that, given that brazing fillers 
are products which can be placed on the market independently and that they are 
used very widely for different brazing purposes, those rules are applicable only in 
relation to the independent use and direct placing on the market of brazing fillers 
(with a cadmium content in excess of the established limits and which have been 
produced by means of the specified technique) and that exceptions to those rules 
are only provided for in the case of defence and aerospace applications. 
12 In the opinion of the applicant, unlike the abovementioned paragraph, 
paragraph 10 lays down rules relating to a specific category of articles (jewellery 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 7. 2024 – CASE C-512/24 
 
4  
and imitation jewellery) and provides an exhaustive list of those types of articles 
which may be used and placed on the market, provided the concentration of 
cadmium in them is less than 0.01% by weight. It stresses that that general rule 
does not apply in two cases: where the article was placed on the market prior to 
the amendment of the REACH Regulation of 10 December 2011 and in the case 
of jewellery more than fifty years old on that date. 
13 The applicant observes that, from the grammatical interpretation of the 
[Hungarian expression rendered in English as] ‘brazing fillers’, it is possible to 
deduce, unequivocally, the purpose for which they are used: to allow different 
objects to be soldered together with sufficient firmness. Consequently, from the 
applicant’s point of view, the rules relating to brazing fillers may only be 
interpreted restrictively; that is to say, items of jewellery containing brazed joints 
cannot be regarded as brazing fillers and, in such cases, there is no basis to apply 
the rules contained in paragraph 8. 
14 The applicant stresses that point (i) of paragraph 10 also expressly provides for the 
possibility of the cadmium forming part of ‘other metal components for jewellery 
making’ (that is, being present in the filler in the jewellery) and that the legislature 
introduced a derogation in respect of that situation in paragraph 11. 
15 The applicant notes that not only the grammatical interpretation, but also the 
teleological interpretation, necessarily leads to the conclusion that paragraphs 10 
and 11 are to be interpreted independently, since, otherwise, if paragraph 8 
applied, the exceptions provided for in paragraph 11 would be rendered void and 
the reason for which they were established and their meaning would be entirely 
eliminated, because there is practically no cadmium in the precious metal part of 
jewellery; that is, the cadmium is only present in the brazing fillers used to 
manufacture the jewellery. That was extraordinarily common in the jewellery of 
more than fifty years ago and in that placed on the market prior to 10 December 
2011. That being so, the establishment of the exceptions provided for in 
paragraph 11 would not make sense if, in accordance with paragraph 8, the 
content of paragraphs 10 and 11 could not actually be taken into consideration ab 
ovo. 
16 The applicant has asked this court to initiate preliminary ruling proceedings before 
the Court of Justice of the European Union. It notes that the parties to the dispute 
do not contest the fact that brazing fillers, as a semi-finished product, may be 
purchased on the market. As such, the precious metal alloys used to manufacture 
the items – that is to say, the pieces of precious metal in the precious metal items – 
neither contain, nor can they contain, cadmium. The components of the different 
types of jewellery made of precious metal alloys – the small precious metal 
elements – do not contain cadmium either. However, in its opinion, the soldering 
material used in the brazing technique which allows pieces made of precious 
metal alloys to be joined in a permanent fashion may contain cadmium. 
BÁV 
 
5 
17 The applicant emphasises that paragraph 8 solely establishes a prohibition with 
regard to the use and placing on the market of brazing fillers which can be placed 
on the market independently and that the legislature provides for exceptions to 
that prohibition in paragraph 9, only in the case of defence and aerospace 
applications. Unlike the requirements of paragraph 8 regarding brazing fillers 
which can be place on the market independently, paragraph 10 lays down rules for 
a specific category of articles (jewellery, imitation jewellery, metal beads and 
other metal components for jewellery making). 
18 In the opinion of the applicant, brazing fillers must also be regarded as being 
included in the concept of ‘other metal components for jewellery making’. 
Accordingly, jewellery containing fillers that contain cadmium is not governed by 
paragraph 8, but rather by paragraph 10, and, therefore, the exceptions provided 
for in paragraph 11 must also apply to such jewellery. 
19 The applicant argues that initiating preliminary ruling proceedings before the 
Court of Justice is justified, in particular, by the fact that the legal question to be 
adjudicated on goes beyond judicial scrutiny of a particular administrative 
decision, since, if the defendant’s reasoning were correct, trade in antique 
jewellery and jewellery placed on the market prior to 10 December 2011 would 
come to be entirely prohibited and a significant segment of the market for works 
of art would consequently disappear. 
The defence 
20 In its defence, the defendant asks the court to reject the claim brought by the 
applicant as unfounded. 
21 According to the defendant, due to the harmful effects of cadmium on health and 
physical integrity, the legislature, on a general basis, following the entry into force 
of the REACH Regulation, prohibits brazing fillers with a concentration of 
cadmium that is not permitted and which can be found in items that are not 
mentioned in the exceptions provided for in paragraph 9. It submits that it is not 
possible to interpret paragraph 8, restrictively, as meaning that brazing fillers are 
items that are placed on the market independently and that placing them on the 
market as a raw material would only be prohibited where their cadmium content 
exceeded the limit established in the legislation. It maintains that cadmium, in a 
quantity in excess of the limit value, used as a brazing material in items that are in 
contact with the skin, is just as seriously harmful to health as cadmium which is 
sold as a raw material and subsequently incorporated into the item in the brazing 
material. Consequently, in accordance with the general prohibition established in 
the legislation, the placing on the market of items containing brazing material with 
a cadmium content greater than that established in the legislation has been 
prohibited. 
22 The defendant explains that, in taking its point of view, it also took into 
consideration the fact that, as is well known in the precious metalworking sector, 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 7. 2024 – CASE C-512/24 
 
6  
in the case of jewellery made of precious metals, only the brazing fillers contain a 
high concentration of cadmium, greater than 0.01% by weight, which is seriously 
harmful to health. Cadmium is used in the brazing technique in order to reduce the 
melting point of the brazing fillers. Conversely, in the alloy providing the basic 
material for precious metal jewellery, cadmium may only appear accidentally, as a 
result of contamination, and its use in the alloy providing the basic material for 
jewellery does not serve any purpose. 
23 The defendant argues that there can be no doubt that the intention of the 
legislature was, on a general basis, with the exception of the cases mentioned by 
way of derogation in paragraph 9, to prohibit the placing on the market, whether 
as a raw material or as a brazing material in jewellery, of brazing fillers containing 
cadmium in a quantity harmful to health. 
24 The defendant stresses that the purpose of the rules laid down in paragraphs 10 
and 11 of row 23 of Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation is related to the 
measurement of the concentration present in the metal alloy [of which the items 
are made] and in their other metal components, other than brazing fillers, and that 
those rules are not relevant to the present case. 
25 According to the defendant, paragraphs 10 and 11 of row 23 of Annex XVII to the 
REACH Regulation apply not only to precious metal items, but rather to all metal 
items. It submits that it is also reasonable to conclude that the purpose of those 
rules is not [to regulate] the cadmium content of brazing fillers – a matter which 
has already been regulated in paragraph 8 – but rather to prohibit the placing on 
the market of articles of jewellery and imitation jewellery and hair accessories 
containing cadmium in a concentration greater than 0.01% by weight of the metal 
in the other metal components – other than brazing material – and in the metal 
parts which make up the basic material of the metal items. Thus, paragraph 10 
contains a prohibition on a cadmium content greater than that established in the 
legislation and present, not only in precious metal alloys, but also in any metal 
alloy specified in that same paragraph, or incorporated into the alloy as an 
impurity or as plating – in the case of imitation jewellery – or in any other 
manner, in a quantity greater than that established in the legislation. Paragraph 11 
is confined to introducing a broader derogation in respect of those items, 
according to which paragraph 10 is not applicable to articles placed on the market 
before 10 December 2011 or to jewellery more than fifty years old on 
10 December 2011. 
26 According to the defendant, the exceptions referred to in paragraph 11 constitute 
an exemption from the prohibition on the placing on the market of articles of 
jewellery and imitation jewellery and hair accessories with a cadmium content, in 
the other metal components, other than brazing material, and in the metal parts 
mentioned in paragraph 10, greater than that established in the legislation. Those 
exceptions have no legal impact on the prohibition relating to brazing fillers 
established in paragraph 8. 
BÁV 
 
7 
27 The defendant does not object to the applicant’s request for preliminary ruling 
proceedings to be initiated. It emphasises that the results of the measurements are 
not disputed by the parties. It notes that in the English version [of the legislation in 
question], the term ‘component’ is used, which translates into Hungarian as 
‘alkotórész’. * The applicant maintains that the joining material cannot be 
regarded as an integral part. It stresses that, in the case of precious metals, 
cadmium can only be present in the brazing material. 
Relevant European Union law 
28 In accordance with paragraph 8 of row 23 of Annex XVII to the REACH 
Regulation, cadmium is not to be used in brazing fillers in concentrations equal to 
or greater than 0.01 % by weight. Brazing fillers are not to be placed on the 
market if the concentration of cadmium (expressed as Cd metal) is equal to or 
greater than 0.01% by weight. For the purpose of that paragraph, brazing is to 
mean a joining technique using alloys and undertaken at temperatures above 
450 °C. 
29 According to paragraph 9 of row 23 of Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation, by 
way of derogation, paragraph 8 is not to apply to brazing fillers used in defence 
and aerospace applications and to brazing fillers used for safety reasons. 
30 In accordance with paragraph 10 of row 23 of Annex XVII to the REACH 
Regulation, cadmium is not to be used or placed on the market if the concentration 
is equal to or greater than 0.01 % by weight of the metal in: (i) metal beads and 
other metal components for jewellery making; (ii) metal parts of jewellery and 
imitation jewellery articles and hair accessories, including: bracelets, necklaces 
and rings, piercing jewellery, wrist-watches and wrist-wear, and brooches and 
cufflinks. 
31 Paragraph 11 of row 23 of Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation provides, by 
way of derogation, that paragraph 10 is not to apply to articles placed on the 
market before 10 December 2011 and jewellery more than fifty years old on 
10 December 2011. 
Applicable Hungarian law 
32 The REACH Regulation is in force in Hungary and has been applicable since 
1 June 2007. The amended provisions of row 23 of Annex XVII have been 
applicable since 10 December 2011. 
 
* [TN: the Hungarian term ‘alkotórész’ (which is not the term appearing in the Hungarian version 
of paragraph 10 of row 23 of Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation, where the noun 
‘komponens’ (‘component’ in the English version)) is used, is derived from the verb which may 
be translated as ‘constitute, make up or form’. In this request for a preliminary ruling, 
‘alkotórész’ is translated as ‘integral part’.] 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 7. 2024 – CASE C-512/24 
 
8  
Why it is necessary to request a preliminary ruling  
33 The referring court seeks guidance from the Court of Justice regarding how the 
expression ‘other metal components for jewellery making’ contained in point (i) 
of paragraph 10 of row 23 of Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation is to be 
interpreted. More specifically, it wishes the Court to clarify whether the brazing 
filler for jewellery at issue in the main proceedings may be regarded as a 
component or whether it is excluded from the concept ‘component’. In the latter 
case, the derogation contained in paragraph [11] of row 23 of Annex XVII to the 
REACH Regulation would not apply. 
34 According to the referring court, paragraph 10 of row 23 of Annex XVII to the 
REACH Regulation constitutes a special rule in relation to paragraph 8 of that row 
and, in accordance with the Roman law principle lex specialis derogat legi 
generali, takes precedence over the general rule. In that regard, brazing fillers 
could be included in the concept of other metal components for jewellery making. 
That way, the rules contained in paragraph 11, which contains a derogation with 
regard to the category of jewellery that is more than fifty years old, as is the case 
with the jewellery at issue in the main proceedings, could make more sense. 
35 The referring court also notes that, in the case of a precious metal item, it is a 
relevant fact that, compared to the total weight of the item of jewellery, the 
amount of cadmium which may potentially be found in the brazing material is 
insignificant in percentage terms. 
36 At the same time, the referring court expresses its concern, also expressed by the 
defendant in its defence, arising from the fact that, in order to protect health, the 
legislature laid down strict rules with regard to cadmium, because of its 
carcinogenic nature. The REACH Regulation aims to ensure a high level of 
protection for human health and the environment. It is well known that cadmium 
is a toxic chemical element and a probable carcinogen and it is justifiable to 
establish strict legal rules in relation to its use. 
… [matters of national procedural law] 
Budapest, on 12 July 2024. 
… 
[signatures]