Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2017:543
Date: 2017-07-13
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Environment;Approximation of laws;Research and technological development;Public health;REACH
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 13 July 2017 1. Approximation of laws — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — REACH Regulation — Substances of very high concern — Authorisation system — Stages (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Arts 1(1), 55, 57, and Annex XIV) 2. Approximation of laws — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — REACH Regulation — Uses or categories of use exempted from the authorisation requirement — Conditions (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Art. 58(2)) 3. Approximation of laws — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — REACH Regulation — Uses or categories of use exempted from the authorisation requirement — Conditions — Dismissal of the exemption request where one of the conditions not met — Condition requiring that there be existing specific Community legislation — Chromium trioxide — None (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Art. 58(2); European Parliament and Council Directive No 2004/37; Council Directive 98/24) 1. In that regard, Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1907/2006 on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), states that the purpose of the regulation is to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment, including the promotion of alternative methods for assessment of hazards of substances, as well as the free circulation of substances on the internal market while enhancing competitiveness and innovation. To that end, that regulation introduces an integrated system for monitoring chemical substances, including registration, evaluation and authorisation, together with possible restrictions on their use. The REACH Regulation makes substances ‘of very high concern’ subject to careful attention. Those substances are thus subject to the authorisation scheme laid down in Title VII of that regulation which, pursuant to Article 55 of that regulation, is intended to ensure the good functioning of the internal market while assuring that the risks from substances of very high concern are properly controlled and that these substances are progressively replaced by suitable alternative substances or technologies where these are economically and technically viable. The first stage under that authorisation scheme is the procedure for identifying substances of very high concern on the basis of the criteria set out in Article 57 of the REACH Regulation. The second stage is the inclusion of those substances on the list of substances subject to authorisation set out in Annex XIV to that regulation, and the third and final stage concerns the procedure that leads, if appropriate, to the authorisation of a substance of very high concern. (see paras 27-29) 2. In order to ensure coherence between the authorisation scheme laid down in Title VII of Regulation No 1907/2006 on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and other EU legal provisions aimed at protecting human health and the environment from risks arising from the use of chemical substances, Article 58(2) of that regulation allows for the exemption of certain uses or categories of uses from the authorisation requirement provided that, on the basis of the existing specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance, the risk is properly controlled. It is clear from that provision that certain uses or categories of uses of a substance of very high concern may be exempted from the authorisation requirement if two conditions are satisfied. Those conditions require, first, that there be existing specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance and, secondly, that, on the basis of that legislation, the risk be properly controlled. It is also apparent from the clear wording of that provision that those conditions are cumulative, which means that it is sufficient that only one of those conditions is not satisfied for the exemption to have to be refused. (see paras 30, 31) 3. Having correctly held that Directive 98/24 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work and Directive 2004/37 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work contain no provisions specific to chromium trioxide imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance, the General Court did not err in law in finding that those directives do not constitute specific legislation within the meaning of Article 58(2) of Regulation No 1907/2006 on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). Consequently, the General Court was fully entitled to conclude that the first of the two conditions laid down by that provision was not satisfied and, accordingly, that Court was justified in rejecting the plea alleging infringement of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation. The meaning and scope of the term ‘specific legislation’, for which the REACH Regulation provides no definition, must be determined by considering its usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which it occurs and the purposes of the rules of which it is part. In everyday language, the usual meaning of the adjective ‘specific’ denotes that which is distinctive of a particular subset and distinguishes it from other subsets, thus it can be regarded as the opposite of ‘general’. In accordance with its usual meaning, the term ‘specific legislation’ used in Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation must be interpreted as referring, at the very least, to any directive or regulation laying down rules particular to the substance concerned. That term is to be understood as contrasting with legislation governing either a group of substances or categories of uses, which are defined generally and abstractly. Although the first sentence of Article 58(2) of the REACH Regulation refers not to the notion of ‘substance’ but only to the notion of ‘uses or categories of uses’, the fact remains that the exemption mechanism implies an inextricable link between a substance and its uses or categories of uses. The objective of the REACH Regulation is to regulate substances, as is apparent from its title and its general scheme. The authorisation scheme referred to in Title VII more specifically covers substances which, on account of their intrinsic properties, are considered to be of very high concern and, accordingly, must ultimately be replaced. (see paras 34, 35, 37, 38, 42)