On February 6, 2025, the European Union (EU) Advocate General (EU AG) recommended that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) overturn the 2022 decision of the General Court annulling the 2019 harmonized classification and labeling of titanium dioxide as a carcinogenic substance by inhalation in certain powder forms. As reported in our December 6, 2022, memorandum, the court annulled the European Commission’s (EC) decision to classify titanium dioxide as a suspected human carcinogen. The French government and the EC appealed the decision, arguing that the court exceeded the limits of permissible judicial review of an EC decision and that the court incorrectly interpreted the concept of “intrinsic properties” as it appears in the Classification, Labeling, and Packaging (CLP) Regulation.

According to the EU AG, “[i]n cases of scientific uncertainty relevant for the identification and classification of hazardous substances, the CLP Regulation bestows the role of final interpreter on the Commission, which in turn renders its decision on the basis of an assessment by the [Risk Assessment Committee (RAC)]. In other words, the Commission chooses the ‘correct’ interpretation of scientific data.” In the judgment under appeal, the court did not agree with the conclusion of the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) RAC. The court “explained that taking into consideration the standard particle density value of titanium dioxide for the purposes of the Morrow overload calculation would be wrong; a lower density value should have been used in the circumstances at issue.” The EU AG concludes that “by going further than simply judging whether the administration was aware of and had assessed all of the aspects that current scientific knowledge required it to take into consideration,” the court exceeded the limit of its power of judicial review and annulled the EC’s decision “not because that institution did not take into account all of the relevant (scientific) factors, but because it disagreed with how the administration had assessed those factors.”

The lower court excluded the possibility that the carcinogenicity arising from the inhalation of titanium dioxide in powder form may be connected to its intrinsic properties because (1) carcinogenicity appears only if a certain quantity of that substance is inhaled and (2) carcinogenicity results only from inflammation in the lung due to the accumulation of titanium dioxide particles therein. The court concluded that these are properties that are extrinsic to the substance itself. The EU AG disagrees, stating that “in the light of the context and purpose of the CLP Regulation, the concept of ‘intrinsic properties’ must be interpreted broadly” and that the court “erred when attributing a narrow interpretation to the concept of ‘intrinsic properties.’”

The EU AG proposes that the ECJ:

• Set aside the November 2022 judgment in CWS Powder Coatings and Others v Commission (T‑279/20, T‑283/20 and T‑288/20, EU:T:2022:725);
• Refer the case back to the General Court for the resolution of the remaining pleas in law; and
• Order that the costs be reserved.

EU AGs assist the ECJ. They are responsible for presenting, with complete impartiality and independence, opinions in assigned cases. Their opinions are non-binding. The ECJ is expected to issue its decision later this year.