Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2015 in Case C-106/14, Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution (FCD) and Fédération des magasins de bricolage et de l’aménagement de la maison (FMB) v Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable et de lʼénergie.
1 Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions in accordance with Article 117(4) of REACH and Article 46(2) of CLP, and a review of certain elements of REACH in line with Articles 75(2), 138(2), 138(3) and 138(6) of REACH: Staff Working Document SWD (2013) 25 final, 4.
2 European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) [2006] OJ L33/1 (hereafter ‘REACH’).
3 REACH, Article 6.
4 REACH, Title VIII.
5 REACH, Title VII.
6 Gunter Verheugen, EU Industry Commissioner. See: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1503325/Most-controversial-European-law-wins-parliamentary-approval.html#>
8 Article 3(33)
9 Article 3(35) defines a recipient of an articles as “an industrial or professional user, or a distributor, being supplied with an article but does not include consumers”
10 Article 7(6)
11 ECHA, Guidance on Requirements for Substances in Articles (Version 2, April 2011) para 2.2. See: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/articles_en.pdf
12 ECHA, ibid, para 2.3
13 L. Bergkamp and N. Herbatschek, ‘The “Once an Article, Always an Article” Approach” (2015) 1 EJRR 155
14 For a more detailed review, see: Marianne Hoppenbrouwers, ‘The Story of the Button on the Jacket – Substances in Complex Products’ (2011) 8(4) JEEPL 353
15 Judgment, para 23
16 Judgment, para 23
17 Judgment, para 24
18 Judgment, para 25
19 Judgment, para 27
20 Judgment, para 26
21 Judgment, para 47
22 Judgment, para 49
23 Judgment, para 50
24 Judgment, para 50
25 Save as regards when articles become waste. See Article 2(2) of REACH. Judgment, para 52.
26 Judgment, para 53
27 Judgment, para 53
28 Judgment, para 55
29 Judgment, para 56
30 Judgment, para 57
31 Judgment, para 60
32 Judgment, para 75
33 ibid
34 Judgment, para 77
35 Judgment, para 78
36 Judgment, para 79
37 Judgment, para 80
38 Judgment, para 82
39 Judgment, para 44
40 Judgment, para 68
41 Judgment, para 28
42 Judgment, para 28
43 S. Vaughan, EU Chemicals Regulation: New Governance, Hybridity and REACH (Edward Elgar, 2015)
44 See, for example: Case C-325/91 France v Commission [1993] ECR I-3283, Case C-226/11 Expedia Inc v Competition Authority [2012] ECR I-795, Case T-187-99 Agrana Zucker v Commission [2001] ECR II-1587; Case T-214/95 Vlaamse Gewest v Commission [1998] ECR II-717; and Case C-520/09 P Arkema v Commission [2011] ECR I-08901
45 Bergkamp and Herbatschek, n 13 above, 159
46 Judgment, para 29
47 Vaughan, n 43 above
48 For a more detailed review of these issues, see: Vaughan, S., ‘Differentiation and Dysfunction: An Exploration of Post-Legislative Guidance Practices in 14 EU Agencies’ (2015) 17(1) Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
