The decision of the European Commission refusing to re-examine the authorisation granted in 2016 to three recycling companies for the use of recycled PVC plastic containing phthalate DEHP should be annulled on the basis of a poor assessment of the socio-economic benefits of that authorisation, Advocate General Juliane Kokott said in her Opinion delivered on Thursday 25 February (Case C-45//19 P).
Due to its toxic properties for reproduction and the resulting risks to human health, phthalate DEHP has been classified since 2011 as a substance of very high concern in accordance with the REACH Regulation (1907/2006). Since it is a candidate substance for inclusion in the list of substances of very high concern because of its endocrine properties, its authorisation is based solely on its toxic properties.
ClientEarth, citing the Aarhus Regulation (1367/2006), which provides a framework for access to justice in environmental matters, is challenging the 2016 authorisation decision for the three recycling companies because the Commission considered that the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risks. It was dismissed in an appeal to the EU General Court (Case T-108/17).
In her Opinion, the Advocate General proposes that the judgment of the General Court and the Commission’s decision refusing to review its authorisation be annulled, as the General Court and the Commission have accepted that the authorisation of phthalate DEHP is based on an incomplete balancing of interests.
In her view, the balancing of socio-economic benefits against other risks to human health or the environment should also have taken into account the endocrine properties already known at the time of the decision.
The socio-economic benefits of a use depend not only on the advantages of the use, but also on its other risks to the environment and health, those risks are likewise socio-economic factors, Mrs Kokott adds. And when they lead to environmental or health damage, these risks harm society, incur economic costs and diminish socio-economic benefits. They must therefore be taken into account in assessing whether the benefits outweigh the risk justifying the authorisation requirement.
See the Opinion: http://bit.ly/37NUbiR (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)