In its decision T-163/23 of 9 July 2025, the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dismissed the action filed by a number of undertakings producing or using melamine, including LAT Nitrogen Piesteritz GmbH, Cornerstone Chemical Co. and Fritz Egger GmbH & Co. OG. The competent German authority had submitted a dossier to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to identify melamine as substance of very high concern, namely as a chemical substance with probable serious effects on human health and the environment under the Regulation No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH Regulation). Subsequently, the ECHA issued a decision identifying melamine as a substance of very high concern. The complainants filed an action before the General Court against this decision of the ECHA.

First, the court held that for a substance to be identified as being of very high concern, it must have probable serious effects on human health or the environment. This would require an analysis of the hazards arising from the intrinsic properties of the substance. However, it was not necessary for one singular and isolated intrinsic property to be of very high concern. Instead, it would be sufficient if this property, in combination with other effects resulting from other intrinsic properties, could have a serious effect on human health or the environment. In that regard, the effects associated with the environmental fate properties of a substance, such as its persistence, mobility and potential for long-range transport, may be taken into consideration to determine the detrimental effects on human health or the environment. Consequently, the court found that the ECHA did not make a manifest error in its assessment.

Second, the court rejected the argument that the REACH Regulations would guarantee a right to be heard during the procedure for the adoption of the ECHA’s decision. The regulation would only provide for a public consultation but would not confer a specific procedural right to the parties other than to submit comments. Interested parties participating in the Member State Committee’s (MSC) meeting as observers were only able to submit comments on specific points that were determined in advance.

For more information, see here.