The CJEU (General Court) sided with Sweden in T-521/14, concerning the failure, by the Commission, to adopt measures concerning the specification of scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties.
To improve the free movement of biocidal products in the EU, while ensuring a high level of protection of human and animal health and the environment, the EU adopted Regulation 528/2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products. It sets out the active substances which, in principle, cannot be approved. They include active substances which, on the basis of criteria to be established, are regarded as having endocrine-disrupting properties which may be harmful to humans, or which have been designated as having those properties. It also provides that, by 13 December 2013 at the latest, the Commission was to adopt the delegated acts as regards the specification of the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties.
The EC cited criticism following its presentation of draft scientific criteria, as well as the need to make the various possible solutions subject to an impact assessment. The CJEU first of all held that the Commission had a clear, precise and unconditional obligation to adopt delegated acts as regards the specification of the scientific criteria for the determination of the endocrine-disrupting properties and that that was to be done by 13 December 2013.
With respect to the impact assessment, the General Court finds that there is no provision of the regulation which requires such an impact analysis. What is more, even if the Commission ought to have carried out such an impact analysis, that does not in any way exonerate it, in the absence of provisions to that effect, from complying with the deadline set for the adoption of those delegated acts.
I like this judgment (it will no doubt be appealed by the EC). It reinforces the need to respect clearly defined dates and deadlines. And it takes a bit of the shine off impact assessments, the duration, extend, and lobbying of which can often lead to death by impact analysis.
Geert.
Le secret médical ne fait pas obstacle à la désignation d’un expert pharmacien pour examiner un dossier contenant des renseignements médicaux et détenu par une fédération sportive investie de prérogatives de puissance publique en matière de lutte contre le dopage.
En carrousel matière: Non Matières OASIS: Ministère publicBloquer globalement l’accès à une plateforme telle que YouTube constitue pour les usagers actifs de ce site internet une violation de leur droit à recevoir et à communiquer des informations garanti par l’article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.
En carrousel matière: Oui Matières OASIS: NéantLe Conseil d’État, dans une décision rendue le 9 décembre dernier, a prononcé un sursis à statuer sur la requête de l’Ordre des avocats de Paris, contre une décision implicite de rejet du Premier Ministre. Ce dernier n’avait pas répondu à la demande de l’Ordre, présentée le 16 juin 2014, qui lui demandait d’abroger les dispositions des articles 205 et 206 de l’annexe II du CGI, qui ne permettent pas la déduction, par les particuliers non soumis à TVA, de cette taxe dont ils s’acquittent lorsqu’ils rémunèrent un avocat pour des services juridiques dans le cadre d’une action en justice.
En carrousel matière: Non Matières OASIS: Néant
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer