Canadian Oil Company Sweden AB and Anders Rantén v Riksåklagaren.
Date: 2016-03-17
24


In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the purpose of the regulation, in accordance with Article 1(1) thereof, 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.
25


To that end, the REACH Regulation introduces an integrated system for monitoring chemical substances, including registration, evaluation and authorisation, together with possible restrictions on their use. The cardinal principles governing those factors were presented by the European Commission in the introduction to its Proposal for a Regulation COM(2003) 644 final of 29 October 2003. That proposal describes ‘the REACH system’ as comprising, first of all, registration, which requires ‘industry to obtain relevant information on their substances and to use that data to manage them safely’, next, ‘[e]valuation[, which] provides confidence that industry is meeting its obligations’ and authorisation for substances of very high concern whose ‘[r]isks associated with uses are adequately controlled, if the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risks and there are no suitable alternative substitute substances or technologies’. Lastly, ‘[t]he restrictions procedure provides a safety net to manage risks that have not been adequately addressed by another part of the REACH system’ (judgment in FCD and FMB, C‑106/14, EU:C:2015:576, paragraph 32).
26


Free movement in the internal market is ensured by the fact that, pursuant to Article 128(1) of the REACH Regulation, the Member States are under an obligation not to prohibit, restrict or impede the manufacturing, import, placing on the market or use of a substance on its own, in a mixture or in an article which complies with the regulation and, where appropriate, with Community acts adopted in implementation thereof. Nonetheless, under Article 128(2) of the REACH Regulation, nothing therein is to prevent Member States from maintaining or laying down national rules to protect workers, human health and the environment applying in cases where that regulation does not harmonise the requirements on manufacture, placing on the market or use (judgment in Lapin luonnonsuojelupiiri, C‑358/11, EU:C:2013:142, paragraph 32).
27


It is therefore apparent from those provisions that the EU legislature intended to harmonise those requirements only in certain cases (see, to that effect, judgment in Lapin luonnonsuojelupiiri, C‑358/11, EU:C:2013:142, paragraph 33).
30


In accordance with those objectives, that regulation lays the burden of analysis of chemical substances on the industry. For that purpose, it institutes a number of information-related mechanisms aimed, all along the supply chain, at identifying any dangerous properties and at managing risk in order to ensure that human health and the environment are not adversely affected. (judgment in FCD and FMB, C‑106/14, EU:C:2015:576, paragraph 33).
32


Accordingly, whilst the registration of chemical substances with ECHA constitutes a pre-condition for their free movement in the internal market, provided that those substances, in particular as regards their properties, also comply with the REACH Regulation, the harmonisation which that regulation operates in respect of such registration of those substances does not extend to another form of registration with the national authorities, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not constitute such a pre-condition, which concerns information different from that required by that regulation and which pursues the same objectives as those pursued by that regulation or objectives complementary thereto, namely, in particular, to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment as well as the free circulation of such substances on the internal market.
43


In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, all measures of a Member State which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade within the European Union are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU (see, inter alia, judgments in Dassonville, 8/74, EU:C:1974:82, paragraph 5, and Scotch Whisky Association and Others, C‑333/14, EU:C:2015:845, paragraph 31).
44


As the Advocate General noted in point 53 of her Opinion, the mandatory nature of the registration of the import of chemical products with the competent national authority constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU, since the fact of imposing formalities for import is capable of hindering trade within the European Union and impeding access to the market for goods which are lawfully produced and marketed in other Member States (see, to that effect, judgment in Ahokainen and Leppik, C‑434/04, EU:C:2006:609, paragraph 21), which is, moreover, disputed neither by the referring court nor by any of the parties interested in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union who have submitted observations in the present case.
45


In accordance with settled case-law, a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports can be justified, for example, on grounds of the protection of the health and life of humans, under Article 36 TFEU, only if that measure is appropriate for securing the achievement of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (judgment in Scotch Whisky Association and Others, C‑333/14, EU:C:2015:845, paragraph 33). Furthermore, national measures that are capable of hindering intra-Community trade may be justified by overriding requirements relating to protection of the environment (see, to that effect, judgment in Ålands Vindkraft, C‑573/12, EU:C:2014:2037, paragraph 77).