- NGOs feel relieved that the industry has asked for a repeal of the European Community Court (ECJ) decision on April 1, 2008, and that the European Commission agreed to list the brominated flame retardant deca-BDE in 2002. Resolution 2002/95/EC on the "Restrictions on the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment" (RoHS Directive) exemption list is ineffective.
Decabromodiphenyl ether will be banned from use on June 30, 2008. Since this material is widely used as a flame retardant in the textile and plastics industries, the ban will have a profound impact on the world. In October 2005, the European Commission unilaterally waived the restrictions on the use of decabromodiphenyl ether, ignoring the provisions of Article 5 of the RoHS Directive. The European Court of Justice announced that it is in favor of the European Parliament, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Portugal. Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
The European Court of Justice emphasized that the main basis of the judgment is "disputes caused by the way in which instructions are written." The court held that the use of EU risk assessment by the European Commission as the basis for the exemption was wrong, and this assessment is not one of the standards allowed by the RoHS Directive. However, the court did not question, nor was it required to make a judgement on the correctness of the decabromodiphenyl ether risk assessment, and the risk assessment was not affected by the verdict. In fact, the immunity against the RoHs directive itself was judged invalid, not risk assessment. This means that procedural errors of exemption can be considered and corrected.
Taking into account the legal complexity of the case, the European Court finally decided that the judgment committee would carry out a "strict and necessary amendment" of the RoHS directive for a period of three months. The European Court of Justice also ruled that the Commission paid the relevant costs of the European Parliament and the Danish government.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are satisfied with the outcome of the European Court of Justice, and the manufacturers of flame retardants are strongly appealing for further measures. They pointed out that the European Court’s decision did not consider the safety of decabromodiphenyl ether. Just because of the procedural mistakes made by the committee. The flame retardant manufacturer stated that the committee has the responsibility to mediate the EU's conclusions regarding the risk assessment of decabromodiphenyl ether (the EU risk assessment of decabromodiphenyl ether concluded that there is no need to take risk reduction measures) and the RoHS directive Contradictions.
The lobbyists of the Brominology Science and Environment Forum group stated: “We believe that the committee may plan to implement new exemptions for decabromodiphenyl ether. Of course, this exemption should comply with the RoHS directive; or the RoHS directive will be amended to decabromodiphenyl oxide. The ether was completely removed from the list of order exemptions. The European Court’s resolution has already pointed out the way for reconsideration of the incident and we look forward to working with the Commission.â€
Decabromodiphenyl ether will be banned from use on June 30, 2008. Since this material is widely used as a flame retardant in the textile and plastics industries, the ban will have a profound impact on the world. In October 2005, the European Commission unilaterally waived the restrictions on the use of decabromodiphenyl ether, ignoring the provisions of Article 5 of the RoHS Directive. The European Court of Justice announced that it is in favor of the European Parliament, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Portugal. Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
The European Court of Justice emphasized that the main basis of the judgment is "disputes caused by the way in which instructions are written." The court held that the use of EU risk assessment by the European Commission as the basis for the exemption was wrong, and this assessment is not one of the standards allowed by the RoHS Directive. However, the court did not question, nor was it required to make a judgement on the correctness of the decabromodiphenyl ether risk assessment, and the risk assessment was not affected by the verdict. In fact, the immunity against the RoHs directive itself was judged invalid, not risk assessment. This means that procedural errors of exemption can be considered and corrected.
Taking into account the legal complexity of the case, the European Court finally decided that the judgment committee would carry out a "strict and necessary amendment" of the RoHS directive for a period of three months. The European Court of Justice also ruled that the Commission paid the relevant costs of the European Parliament and the Danish government.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are satisfied with the outcome of the European Court of Justice, and the manufacturers of flame retardants are strongly appealing for further measures. They pointed out that the European Court’s decision did not consider the safety of decabromodiphenyl ether. Just because of the procedural mistakes made by the committee. The flame retardant manufacturer stated that the committee has the responsibility to mediate the EU's conclusions regarding the risk assessment of decabromodiphenyl ether (the EU risk assessment of decabromodiphenyl ether concluded that there is no need to take risk reduction measures) and the RoHS directive Contradictions.
The lobbyists of the Brominology Science and Environment Forum group stated: “We believe that the committee may plan to implement new exemptions for decabromodiphenyl ether. Of course, this exemption should comply with the RoHS directive; or the RoHS directive will be amended to decabromodiphenyl oxide. The ether was completely removed from the list of order exemptions. The European Court’s resolution has already pointed out the way for reconsideration of the incident and we look forward to working with the Commission.â€