Lead Chromate case and SEAC

ClientEarth asserts that the European Commission and SEAC have failed to fully implement the legal requirements established by the Court in the Lead Chromate case (T-837/16 and C-389/19P). The document demands a systematic approach to identifying 'non-negligible uncertainties' in substitution plans, which should lead to the rejection of authorisations rather than reduced review periods. It also criticizes the current assessment of technical feasibility, arguing that SEAC often accepts applicant claims based on undocumented customer preferences rather than the minimum performance required for the end-use function.

• The Court established that the Commission must reject an authorisation if there are 'non-negligible uncertainties' regarding the availability of suitable alternatives, and that reducing the review period or setting conditions are not acceptable alternatives to rejection.
• ClientEarth claims SEAC does not systematically identify and qualify uncertainties as negligible or non-negligible, citing the MOCA Luc application where it remained unclear if an alternative would ever be successfully implemented.
• Existing guidance documents and templates, such as the September 2021 Opinion template and the SEAC/20/2013/03 Review period paper, still endorse interpretations of REACH that the Court has sanctioned, such as using short review periods as a consequence of uncertainty.
• SEAC is criticized for assessing technical feasibility based on the performance of the Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC) rather than the actual function to be performed, often relying on undocumented customer preferences.
• The document argues that the acceptability of technical performance loss must be assessed to ensure the effectiveness of substitution, meaning performance can be inferior to the SVHC as long as it maintains the end-use function.

APA

Roger, A., & Duguy, H. (2021). Lead Chromate case and SEAC. ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/media/54xpcuqm/lead-chromate-judgment-and-seac-the-changes-required-29-10-2021.pdf

Chicago

Roger, Apolline, and Hélène Duguy. Lead Chromate case and SEAC. ClientEarth, 2021. https://www.clientearth.org/media/54xpcuqm/lead-chromate-judgment-and-seac-the-changes-required-29-10-2021.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Roger |first1=Apolline |last2=Duguy |first2=Hélène |title=Lead Chromate case and SEAC |publisher=ClientEarth |date=October 2021 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/54xpcuqm/lead-chromate-judgment-and-seac-the-changes-required-29-10-2021.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{roger2021lead, author = {Roger, Apolline and Duguy, Hélène}, title = {{Lead Chromate case and SEAC}}, publisher = {ClientEarth}, year = {2021}, month = oct, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/54xpcuqm/lead-chromate-judgment-and-seac-the-changes-required-29-10-2021.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }