Blog Layout
ADCR Re-Authorisation Webinars
ADCR Re-Authorisation Webinars
As part of its outreach efforts, the ADCR Consortium delivered webinars in which the scope of the re-Authorisation work was discussed, the key principles were explained and the next steps were laid out. The webinars were aimed at those companies who have joined or are considering joining the ADCR Consortium but were also open to trade associations who represent potential Consortium members.
Two dates were selected for the webinars to be held in advance of the Consortium’s launch meeting in Brussels on 20th September 2019. The webinar dates were:
3 September 2019, and
11 September 2019.
There were two webinars held on each of those dates and the times were selected to be suitable for audiences both on European and non-European time zones.
The exact times and instructions for securing a place on one of these webinars was made available on this website.
Update (20/08/2019): Webinars were held on the following dates:
Update (15/10/2019): This round of webinars has now concluded. If you were unable to attend and would like to view a recording, please contact us at info@adcr-consortium.eu.
Other news items:
On 20 April 2023, the Court of Justice of the EU issued its judgment in Case C-144/21 European Parliament v European Commission . The case concerned an action brought by the Parliament for the annulment of the Commission's Implementing Decision of 18 December 2020 granting authorisation of certain uses of chromium trioxide (the original CTAC authorisation). As expected, the Court annulled the authorisation decision, but maintained the effects of the decision until the Commission issues a replacement decision. This will very likely be a rejection of the authorisation, as directed by the Court in the present judgment. The judgment followed the Opinion of the Advocate General of 27 October 2022 , and is based on the following factors: Lack of representativeness, reliability and completeness of the submitted worker exposure data, leading to an insufficient risk assessment, based on which the Commission was not in a position to conclude that the socio-economic benefits of the uses in question outweighed their risks to human health. Failure by the Commission to ascertain that there were no suitable alternatives for the uses in question. The Court also considered that the conditions had to be met at the time the decision was adopted. This meant that the Commission could not remedy the lack of sufficient data by providing the obligation for applicants for authorisation to provide additional information in the review reports, such as exposure scenarios and related risk management measures, which were lacking in the risk assessment. However, the Court also stipulated that the effects are to be maintained for only one year from the date of the judgment, which means in practice that the Commission only has until 20 April 2024 to issue its replacement decision. This limit was unexpected; it was not included in the AG's opinion, but has likely been included in order to emphasise the seriousness of the above-described issues with the annulled authorisation, and ensure that these are remedied in future applications, whilst pushing the Commission to take corrective action as soon as possible via the replacement decision.