Comments on ECHA’s position paper related to Downstream User notifications (Article 66)

ClientEarth argues that ECHA's current interpretation of Article 66 of REACH is too restrictive, failing to require essential data from downstream users and overestimating the need for confidentiality. The document asserts that ECHA has the power and obligation to make the notification of exposure data, SVHC functions, and substitution activities compulsory to meet REACH objectives. Furthermore, it contends that under EU law and the Aarhus Regulation, information regarding emissions into the environment—including site addresses, tonnage, and use descriptions—must be systematically disclosed to the public, regardless of commercial interest claims.

• ClientEarth argues that ECHA incorrectly interprets the silence of Article 66 on specific information requirements as a limitation of its power, whereas ECHA actually has the "power, and the obligation, to require all the information needed to check whether the conditions of the authorisation are respected".
• To achieve the objectives of REACH, ClientEarth recommends that ECHA make the notification of the following information compulsory: specific use details (including annual volume ranges and number of staff), brief descriptions of use (such as product types or sectors), and involvement in substitution activities.
• The document asserts that ECHA overestimates the scope of commercial confidentiality, arguing that 'use name' and 'description of use' are not business secrets under Article 118(2) and are "indispensable to understanding how and why the SVHC is used".
• ClientEarth claims that information on 'emissions into the environment' must be systematically disclosed under the Aarhus Regulation, even if it undermines commercial interests. This includes the name and address of downstream users, tonnage information, use names, and conditions of use.
• The document argues that authorisation holders should not be consulted before ECHA publishes information notified by downstream users, as third parties lack the right to be consulted on information belonging to another person under EU Access to Information Regulations.

APA

ClientEarth (2018). Comments on ECHA’s position paper related to Downstream User notifications (Article 66). https://www.clientearth.org/media/cgjlj4om/clientearths-comments-on-echas-position-paper-related-to-downstream-user-notifications-ce-en.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Comments on ECHA’s position paper related to Downstream User notifications (Article 66). 2018. https://www.clientearth.org/media/cgjlj4om/clientearths-comments-on-echas-position-paper-related-to-downstream-user-notifications-ce-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=ClientEarth |title=Comments on ECHA’s position paper related to Downstream User notifications (Article 66) |date=March 2018 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/cgjlj4om/clientearths-comments-on-echas-position-paper-related-to-downstream-user-notifications-ce-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{clientearth2018comments, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Comments on ECHA’s position paper related to Downstream User notifications (Article 66)}}, publisher = {ClientEarth}, year = {2018}, month = mar, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/cgjlj4om/clientearths-comments-on-echas-position-paper-related-to-downstream-user-notifications-ce-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }