Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The letter asserts that DG GROW has misinterpreted EU chemicals law and applied a lenient policy to the REACH authorisation process for ten years. It calls for the Commission to align its practices with a recent Court of Justice judgment, specifically by rejecting applications with non-negligible uncertainties or data gaps and by ending the illegal practice of requesting necessary information after authorisation has already been granted.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The authors claim that DG GROW has misinterpreted EU chemicals law and applied a lenient policy to the REACH authorisation process for the last 10 years, which has prevented the system from delivering its full potential in protecting citizens and the environment.
  • According to the Court of Justice, the Commission must reject an application if non-negligible uncertainties remain after considering all available information, including third-party data and opinions from ECHA's technical committees.
  • The letter identifies several illegal practices persisted in by the Commission, including requesting information that should have been in the original application after authorisation is granted, and transferring the task of identifying compliant uses to the users rather than listing them exhaustively in the decision.
  • The authors argue that the Commission has undermined REACH by adopting a restrictive view of acceptable alternatives, often accepting claims that an alternative must have the same performance as the hazardous substance, whereas performance can be inferior yet still acceptable for the end-use.

Cite the original document

APA
ClientEarth (2021). OPEN LETTER. https://www.clientearth.org/media/gscp14lo/chemsec-clientearth-open-letter-eu-court-judgement-requires-change-in-chemical-authorisation.pdf
Chicago
ClientEarth. OPEN LETTER. 2021. https://www.clientearth.org/media/gscp14lo/chemsec-clientearth-open-letter-eu-court-judgement-requires-change-in-chemical-authorisation.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |author=ClientEarth |title=OPEN LETTER |date=24 March 2021 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/gscp14lo/chemsec-clientearth-open-letter-eu-court-judgement-requires-change-in-chemical-authorisation.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{clientearth2021open, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{OPEN LETTER}}, publisher = {ClientEarth}, year = {2021}, month = mar, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/gscp14lo/chemsec-clientearth-open-letter-eu-court-judgement-requires-change-in-chemical-authorisation.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated