Skip to content

Select your location.

It looks like your location does not match the site. We think you may prefer a ClientEarth site which has content specific to your location. Select the site you'd like to visit below.

English (USA)

Location successfully changed to English (Global)

Follow us

Support us Opens in a new window Donate
Return to mob menu

Search the site

ClientEarth Communications

16th January 2019


Lead in paints: the challenge continues

ClientEarth and its partner organisations are continuing the fight against the use of two chemicals of high concern in paints.

The legal challenge brought in 2017 by ClientEarth, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the International Chemical Secretariat (ChemSec) and International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) is  ongoing. The case challenges a decision of the European Commission allowing the use of two highly hazardous pigments in road markings to paint industrial machines and vehicles.

Last Thursday, the four NGOs, supported by Sweden, defended their case during the public oral hearing before the Tribunal of the EU.

It all started in 2016, when the four NGOs requested the European Commission to reconsider an authorisation allowing a Canadian company to sell two pigments containing highly hazardous chemicals, lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulphate red.

The European Commission refused to review the authorisation, forcing the coalition to bring the case before the EU courts. In the meantime, the Kingdom of Sweden also challenged the legality of this authorisation.

There are many facets to the motivations behind why the coalition is pursuing the case.

Firstly, it is first about the right of organisations such as ours, working to protect the environment, to access the courts to question decisions taken by EU institutions. One important aspect is whether the Tribunal of the EU will take into consideration the Aarhus compliance committee recent findings concluding that the EU is in breach of the UN Aarhus Convention on access to justice.

This case is also about innovation and how EU laws – more precisely the REACH Regulation – if properly put in practice, is meant to encourage companies to invest in safer alternative solutions. This regulation is supposed to create a level playing field for companies who have decided to divest away from dangerous chemicals, not to reward the laggards.

Finally, this case is about competitiveness of EU industries and how a Canadian company obtained the right to disrupt the market with cheap and hazardous products while the others, wisely, had switched away from them, years ago.

This matter is now in the hands of the Tribunal of the EU. Should the case be dismissed, ClientEarth and its partners will consider exercising their right to appeal.