In an opinion published by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on September 8, 2022, Advocate General Szpunar advised the court to “reject” the primary argument of the appeal brought by industry association PlasticsEurope against the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) regarding the classification of bisphenol A (BPA; CAS 80-05-7) as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) based on its endocrine disrupting properties for the environment. The Advocate General called the argument “put forward by the appellant [PlasticsEurope] in its entirety as unfounded.”
This is the third appeal brought forward by PlasticsEurope against the 2018 decision by ECHA to classify BPA as an SVHC, this appeal focused on the environmental endocrine disruptor classification (FPF reported). The CJEU ruled in December 2020 that ECHA was right in its classification (FPF reported). PlasticsEurope appealed again claiming that “the General Court, contrary to the principle of scientific excellence, established an unreasonable threshold and allowed ECHA to exclude reliable scientific studies.” It was this argument the Advocate called unfounded.
PlasticsEurope lost its two previous court cases over the BPA SVHC classification as toxic for human reproduction (FPF reported) and hormonal systems (FPF reported, also here).
The opinion of the Advocate General is not binding, it is an independent assessment meant to assist the CJEU, but according to the European Parliamentary Research Service, the court “is 67% more likely to annul it [a case] if doing so was advised by an Advocate General.” The final court ruling is expected by the end of 2022.
References
Maciej Szpunar (September 8, 2022). “Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar: PlasticsEurope v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).” InfoCuria
Rafał Mańko (October 2019). “Role of Advocates General at the CJEU.” European Parliamentary Research Service
