Updated after the Votes in European Parliament’s Plenary on 27 March.
Nearly all discussions on securing an authorisation for a chemical under REACH ignore the role of the European Parliament.
That’s a mistake.
If you ignore them, you may see an agitated Parliament exercises their scrutiny powers when the draft implementing act is sent up to them for oversight.
The Council tend to waive them through.
To date, five challenges to REACH authorisations have succeeded.
2015
Objection: DEHP (link)
Committee vote: 10 November 2015
Adopted by: 58 for, 5 against, 0 abstention
Plenary Vote: 25 November 2015
Adopted by 603 for, 86 against, 5 abstentions
2018
Ormezzano on sodium chromate (link)
Committee Vote: 20 November 2018
Adopted by: 24; against: 0; abstentions: 17.
Plenary Vote: Adopted by a show of hands
2019
DEZA – DEHP
14 March 2019
Committee Vote: 39 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention
Plenary – 27 March 2019
Vote: For: 545, Against: 50, Abstentions: 24
Grupa Azoty – DEHP
14 March 2014
Committee Vote: 42 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention
Plenary: 27 March 2019
Vote: Carried by a show of hands
Lanxess – chromium trioxide
21 March 2019
Vote: In favour: 20, against 16,abstenstions: 3
Plenary Vote: 27 March 2019
Vote: For: 309, Against: 286, abstenstensions: 24
If the Commission chooses to ignore the European Parliament, the Parliament can take them to the European Court.
It is unclear if the first two challenges led to any changes by ECHA or the Commission.
Yet, since case T 837/16, Sweden v. Commission, that concerned the challenging of the authorisation of lead paint, firms need to be more aware.
If such a legal action succeeds, the Court can void the authorisation.
There are lessons to be learned.