News & InsightsNewsletterLegislation Hub

Foresight

Foresight
AboutContactLog in
Book a Demo
Foresight logo
All News & Insights

Court Rejects Appeal in Cruelty Free Europe's Case Against ECHA

REACH
11
June 2024
•
420
Dr Steven Brennan
The Court found that CFE's appeal did not meet the necessary criteria to proceed.
Judge holding a gavel
Quick prompts

AI Generated

Get to the point quicker with prompts - a smarter way to get the information you need from our articles.

Summarise this article

AI Assistant

This feature and much more is available on our platform. If you would like early access, please leave your email and we'll get in touch.

We'll be in touch when the Assistant is ready.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Mountains

The Court of Justice of the European Union has refused to allow the appeal brought by Cruelty Free Europe (CFE) against the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to proceed. The case, filed under C-79/24 P, involved the interpretation of regulations concerning animal testing under EU law.

Background

Cruelty Free Europe (CFE), an advocacy group based in Brussels, initiated a legal case against the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) regarding animal testing requirements under EU law. The dispute centered on ECHA's decision to require animal testing for the substance homosalate, which is used in cosmetic products.

The Legal Basis

The case involved interpreting the interplay between two major EU regulations:

  1. REACH Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) – This regulation concerns the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals, and establishes requirements for the safety testing of chemicals, including animal testing.
  2. Cosmetics Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009) – This regulation includes provisions specifically prohibiting animal testing for cosmetic products and their ingredients.

Arguments by Cruelty Free Europe

CFE argued that the ECHA's decision to require animal testing for homosalate was in direct conflict with the Cosmetics Regulation, which prohibits animal testing for cosmetic ingredients. They contended that:

  1. Prohibition on Animal Testing: The General Court's decision undermined the prohibition on animal testing set out in Article 18(1)(d) of the Cosmetics Regulation.
  2. Legislative Intent: The ruling did not respect the legislative intent to phase out animal testing, which is reflected in both the Cosmetics Regulation and REACH.
  3. Alternative Testing Methods: The General Court's interpretation disregarded the existence and importance of alternative testing methods that do not involve animals.
  4. Consistency and Coherence: The decision disrupted the coherence between the Cosmetics Regulation, the REACH Regulation, and Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.

Court's Decision

The Court, led by Vice-President L. Bay Larsen, with Judges O. Spineanu-Matei and L.S. Rossi, found that CFE's appeal did not meet the necessary criteria to proceed. The key points of the decision include:

  1. Insufficient Specificity: The Court noted that CFE failed to clearly identify specific errors in the General Court's judgment or to detail how these alleged errors impacted the consistency, unity, or development of EU law.
  2. General Claims: CFE's claims regarding the broader impact on animal testing regulations and industry practices were deemed too general and lacking detailed substantiation.
  3. Lack of Legal Error: The Court found that CFE did not adequately demonstrate how the General Court's interpretation of Article 18(1)(d) was legally flawed or inconsistent with existing EU law.

As a result, the appeal was not allowed to proceed, and CFE was ordered to bear its own costs.

Implications

This decision reinforces the stringent criteria for appeals to the Court of Justice, emphasising the need for detailed legal arguments that clearly articulate the significance of the issues raised. The ruling also upholds the current interpretation and application of the REACH Regulation concerning animal testing requirements.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between regulatory requirements for chemical safety testing and the EU's commitment to reducing animal testing. The refusal to proceed with the appeal underscores the Court's support for ECHA's compliance measures under REACH, despite the advocacy for stricter adherence to animal welfare regulations.

Read the source story

Read this article now for free!

You have read 3 articles.
Create a free account
or
Log in
to finish reading this article now.

Subscribe to our weekly digest

Sign up to receive our newsletter every Tuesday and get access to all of our content.

By creating an account, you agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
This is some text inside of a div block.

Trusted by professionals at

Dupont
ECHA - European Chemicals Agency
Energizer
Chemours
This is some text inside of a div block.

Get Foresight Today

Stay compliant, reduce risk, and protect your business with our AI-powered chemical policy monitoring—tailored just for you.

Global monitoring of 1,200+ sources
Expert-reviewed, trusted regulatory alerts
Instant risk identification for 350k+ substances

Ready to supercharge your policy monitoring workflow?

We’ll be in touch soon with more details and support to help you get started.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Share with a friend
Copy link

Related Articles

Paint coatingsReport Suggests Restrictions on Methylenedianilines Amid Carcinogenic and Environmental Concerns

May 9, 2025

Automotive chrome platingEU Proposes Chromium(VI) REACH Restriction to Safeguard Worker Health

May 2, 2025

Industrial coatingRegulatory Action Proposed for Amine-Terminated Aliphatic Ethers

April 17, 2025

Foresight regulatory experts
Streamline your chemical compliance
Easy-to-use product compliance management for small and mid-sized manufacturers — mitigate risk and protect market access.
Get started
Subscribe to Foresight's newsletter
Stay ahead with the latest news & insights
Join 1,000s of compliance professionals getting the latest insights right to their inbox for free, every Tuesday.
100% free. No spam. Unsubscribe any time.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Stay ahead with the latest news & insights
Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter covering news, events, and expert insights.

Related articles

Paint coatings

Report Suggests Restrictions on Methylenedianilines Amid Carcinogenic and Environmental Concerns

ECHA flags methylenedianilines for potential restrictions in EU due to health and environmental risks; industry urged to monitor developments.

9

May 2025

REACH
Automotive chrome plating

EU Proposes Chromium(VI) REACH Restriction to Safeguard Worker Health

The EU's proposed Chromium(VI) restriction could reshape REACH compliance and exposure controls across industry. Learn what it means for your business.

2

May 2025

REACH
Industrial coating

Regulatory Action Proposed for Amine-Terminated Aliphatic Ethers

ECHA proposes compliance checks and future restrictions for amine-terminated aliphatic ethers. Understand how this affects your regulatory obligations.

17

Apr 2025

REACH
CLP
Foresight
Providing critical insights, analysis, and guidance to help businesses anticipate changes, make informed decisions, and stay ahead.
News & Insights
Newsletter
Legislation Hub
Coverage
Contact
About
© 2025 Foresight. All rights reserved.
SitemapTerms of servicePrivacy policyCookie policy