Landmark EU Court Judgment on the Notification Requirements for Substances of Very High Concern
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.02.15
The 2006 European Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) imposes requirements on the use of chemicals in the European Union (EU) to improve the protection of human health and the environment.
In March, we informed you that a French Court had asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to clarify whether the REACH requirement for producers and importers to notify the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) about Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) applies only to finished articles or also to all individual components that meet REACH's "article" definition: "an object which during production is given a special shape, surface, or design which determines its function to a greater degree than its chemical composition." SVHCs are chemical substances that appear on ECHA's Candidate List and that can only be used in the EU in compliance with REACH. To date, ECHA has identified 163 SVHCs, including, for example, cadmium, and arsenic acid.
ECHA's 2011 guidance on SVHCs supported the view that the REACH notification requirement only applies to finished articles, a view also supported by the European Commission, Greece, and Ireland in the ECJ. Other Member States, such as France and Germany, supported the opposite view that the notification requirement applies to all individual components that meet the "article" definition, a view supported by the ECJ's Advocate-General in her non-binding opinion on February 12, 2015.
On September 10, 2015, the ECJ followed the Advocate-General's opinion and ruled that REACH applies broadly and thus that companies must notify ECHA if SVHCs are present above a concentration of 0.1 percent by weight in finished products or in component parts that meet the "article" definition. The European Commission indicated to Bloomberg that it "acknowledges the ECJ ruling and will analyze it in detail, working with ECHA and Member States to implement the judgment and consider the revision of guidance."
The ECJ's ruling has potentially very costly implications for EU producers and importers of components that contain reportable levels of SVHCs. In particular, these companies will need to determine whether additional REACH compliance steps are required for components that they have already produced and delivered to customers. Similarly, producers of finished articles will need to consider the extent to which individual components of their finished products trigger additional REACH notification requirements.
Other Articles in This Month's Edition:
- California Changes Its 'Made in the USA' Labeling Standard
- Back to the Future: Manufacturers' Warranties May Go Digital with Updates to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
- FDA's Menu Nutrition Labeling Rule May Have the Unintended Consequence of Preserving the Status Quo
- R-E-V-E-R-S-A-L Spells Reversal! The Sixth Circuit Holds Varsity Brands' Cheerleading Uniform Designs to be Copyrightable
- Landmark EU Court Judgment on the Notification Requirements for Substances of Very High Concern
- Identifying Endocrine Disruptors in the European Union
- Advertisers in the Ring – A Roundup of This Month's Competitor Advertising Challenges: the Importance of Syncing Test Results to Claims
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
